Consensus Review of Discordant Imaging Findings after the Introduction of Digital Screening Mammography: Irish National Breast Cancer Screening Program Experience.

Background When there are discordant results between individual readers interpreting screening mammograms, consensus by independent readers may reduce unnecessary recalls for further work-up. Few studies have looked at consensus outcomes following the introduction of full-field digital mammography (FFDM). Purpose To determine outcomes of women discussed at consensus meetings during a 5-year period after introduction of FFDM, including recall rates, cancer detection, and interval cancers. Materials and Methods In this retrospective study from January 2010 to December 2014, the authors reviewed all screening mammograms from a single unit of a biennial Irish national breast screening program after the introduction of FFDM. Screening mammograms were double reported. Abnormalities detected at discordant screening mammography readings were discussed at biweekly consensus meetings. Outcomes of consensus meetings were reviewed in terms of referral for assessment, biopsy rates, cancer detection, and outcomes from later rounds of screening. Statistical analysis was performed by using a χ2 test to compare recall rate and cancer detection rates between FFDM and screen-film mammography based on a previously published study from the authors' institution. Results A total of 2565 women (age range, 50-64 years) with discordant mammographic findings were discussed at consensus meetings. Of these 2565 women, 1037 (40%) were referred for further assessment; 108 cancers were detected in these women. Of the 1285 women who returned to biennial screening, malignancy was detected at the site of original concern in 12 women at a further round of screening. Three true interval cancers were identified. Sensitivity (88.5% [108 of 122]; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 81.5%, 93.6%) and negative predictive value (99.1% [1528 of 1542]; 95% CI: 98.5%, 99.4%) of consensus review remained stable after the introduction of FFDM. Specificity of consensus review increased from 57.6% (729 of 1264; 95% CI: 54.9%, 60.4%) to 62.2% (1528 of 2457; 95% CI: 60.2%, 64.1%) (P = .008). Conclusion Consensus review of discordant mammographic screening-detected abnormalities remains a valuable tool after introduction of full-field digital mammography as it reduces recall for assessment and demonstrates persistently high sensitivity and negative predictive values. © RSNA, 2020 See also the editorial by Hofvind and Lee in this issue.

Position paper on screening for breast cancer by the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI) and 30 national breast radiology bodies from Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Israel, Lithuania, Moldova, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey.

EUSOBI and 30 national breast radiology bodies support mammography for population-based screening, demonstrated to reduce breast cancer (BC) mortality and treatment impact. According to the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the reduction in mortality is 40 % for women aged 50-69 years taking up the invitation while the probability of false-positive needle biopsy is <1 % per round and overdiagnosis is only 1-10 % for a 20-year screening. Mortality reduction was also observed for the age groups 40-49 years and 70-74 years, although with "limited evidence". Thus, we firstly recommend biennial screening mammography for average-risk women aged 50-69 years; extension up to 73 or 75 years, biennially, is a second priority, from 40-45 to 49 years, annually, a third priority. Screening with thermography or other optical tools as alternatives to mammography is discouraged. Preference should be given to population screening programmes on a territorial basis, with double reading. Adoption of digital mammography (not film-screen or phosphor-plate computer radiography) is a priority, which also improves sensitivity in dense breasts. Radiologists qualified as screening readers should be involved in programmes. Digital breast tomosynthesis is also set to become "routine mammography" in the screening setting in the next future. Dedicated pathways for high-risk women offering breast MRI according to national or international guidelines and recommendations are encouraged. KEY POINTS: • EUSOBI and 30 national breast radiology bodies support screening mammography. • A first priority is double-reading biennial mammography for women aged 50-69 years. • Extension to 73-75 and from 40-45 to 49 years is also encouraged. • Digital mammography (not film-screen or computer radiography) should be used. • DBT is set to become "routine mammography" in the screening setting in the next future.

Comparison of digital mammography and screen-film mammography in breast cancer screening: a review in the Irish breast screening program.

OBJECTIVE: Clinical trials to date into the use of full-field digital mammography (FFDM) for breast cancer screening have shown variable results. The aim of this study was to review the use of FFDM in a population-based breast cancer screening program and to compare the results with screen-film mammography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 188,823 screening examinations of women between 50 and 64 years old; 35,204 (18.6%) mammograms were obtained using FFDM. All films were double read using a 5-point rating scale to indicate the probability of cancer. Patients with positive scores were recalled for further workup. The recall rate, cancer detection rate, and positive predictive value (PPV) of FFDM were compared with screen-film mammography. RESULTS: The cancer detection rate was significantly higher for FFDM than screen-film mammography (6.3 vs 5.2 per 1,000, respectively; p = 0.01). The cancer detection rate for FFDM was higher than screen-film mammography for initial screening and subsequent screening, for invasive cancer and ductal carcinoma in situ, and across all age groups. The cancer detection rate for cancers presenting as microcalcifications was significantly higher for FFDM than for screen-film mammography (1.9 vs 1.3 per 1,000, p = 0.01). The recall rate was significantly higher for FFDM than screen-film mammography (4.0% vs 3.1%, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the PPVs of recall to assessment for FFDM and screen-film mammography (15.7% and 16.7%, p = 0.383). CONCLUSION: FFDM resulted in significantly higher cancer detection and recall rates than screen-film mammography in women 50-64 years old. The PPVs of FFDM and screen-film mammography were comparable. The results of this study suggest that FFDM can be safely implemented in breast cancer screening programs.

Analysis of the mammographic and sonographic features of pseudoangiomatous stromal hyperplasia.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to describe the imaging findings in 149 patients with pseudoangiomatous stromal hyperplasia (PASH) who had undergone at least 4 years of clinical follow-up for detection of subsequent malignancy. CONCLUSION: PASH is a common entity that presents with benign imaging features without evidence of subsequent malignant potential. At our institution, in the absence of suspicious features a diagnosis of PASH at core biopsy is considered sufficient, and surgical excision has been obviated.

Digital mammography in a screening programme and its implications for pathology: a comparative study.

AIMS: Most studies comparing full-field digital mammography (FFDM) with conventional screen-film mammography (SFM) have been radiology-based. The pathological implications of FFDM have received little attention in the literature, especially in the context of screening programmes. The primary objective of this retrospective study is to compare FFDM with SFM in a population-based screening programme with regard to a number of pathological parameters. METHODS: During the study period, 107 818 women underwent screening mammograms with almost equal numbers obtained with each technique (49.9% with SFM vs 50.1% with FFDM). We compared SFM with FFDM using the following parameters: recall rate, diagnostic core biopsy rate, cancer detection rates, B3 rate, B4 rate, preoperative diagnostic rate for malignancy, positive predictive values and tumour characteristics. RESULTS: The recall rate was significantly higher with FFDM (4.21% vs 3.52%, p<0.0001). The overall cancer detection rate of 7.2 per 1000 women screened with FFDM was also significantly higher than the rate of 6.2 per 1000 women screened with SFM (p=0.04). The B3 rate in the SFM group was 1.3 per 1000 women screened versus 2.5 per 1000 women screened in the FFDM group (p<0.001). The recall rate and cancer detection rates (overall, invasive and pure ductal carcinoma in situ) were all significantly higher with FFDM for lesions presenting as microcalcifications. CONCLUSIONS: The higher cancer detection rate with FFDM in this study was due to improved detection of microcalcifications. However, this was achieved at the cost of a higher recall rate and a higher B3 rate, indicating that overtreatment may be problematic with digital mammography.