Long-term trends in incidence, characteristics and prognosis of screen-detected and interval cancers in women participating in the Dutch breast cancer screening programme.

BACKGROUND: No studies are available in which changes over time in characteristics and prognosis of patients with interval breast cancers (ICs) and screen-detected breast cancers (SDCs) have been compared. The aim was to study these trends between 1995 and 2018. METHODS: All women with invasive SDCs (N = 4290) and ICs (N = 1352), diagnosed in a southern mammography screening region in the Netherlands, were included and followed until date of death or 31 December 2022. RESULTS: The 5-year overall survival rate of women with SDCs increased from 91.4% for those diagnosed in 1995-1999 to 95.0% for those diagnosed in 2013-2018 (P < 0.001), and from 74.8 to 91.6% (P < 0.001) in the same periods for those with ICs. A similar trend was observed for the 10-year survival rates. After adjustment for changes in tumour characteristics, the hazard ratio (HR) for overall survival was 0.47 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.38-0.59) for women with SDCs diagnosed in the period 2013-2018, compared to the women diagnosed in the period 1995-1999. For the women with ICs this HR was 0.27 (95% CI: 0.19-0.40). CONCLUSION: The prognosis of women with ICs has improved rapidly since 1995 and is now almost similar to that of women with SDCs.

Invasive recurrence after breast conserving treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast in the Netherlands: time trends and the association with tumour grade.

BACKGROUND: The first aim of this study was to examine trends in the risk of ipsilateral invasive breast cancer (iIBC) after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). A second aim was to analyse the association between DCIS grade and the risk of iIBC following BCS. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this population-based, retrospective cohort study, the Netherlands Cancer Registry collected information on 25,719 women with DCIS diagnosed in the period 1989-2021 who underwent BCS. Of these 19,034 received adjuvant radiotherapy (RT). Kaplan-Meier analyses and Cox regression models were used. RESULTS: A total of 1135 patients experienced iIBC. Ten-year cumulative incidence rates of iIBC for patients diagnosed in the periods 1989-1998, 1999-2008 and 2009-2021 undergoing BCS without RT, were 12.6%, 9.0% and 5.0% (P < 0.001), respectively. For those undergoing BCS with RT these figures were 5.7%, 3.7% and 2.2%, respectively (P < 0.001). In the multivariable analyses, DCIS grade was not associated with the risk of iIBC. CONCLUSION: Since 1989 the risk of iIBC has decreased substantially and has become even lower than the risk of invasive contralateral breast cancer. No significant association of DCIS grade with iIBC was found, stressing the need for more powerful prognostic factors to guide the treatment of DCIS.

Enhancing Radiologist Reading Performance by Ordering Screening Mammograms Based on Characteristics That Promote Visual Adaptation.

Background Mammographic background characteristics may stimulate human visual adaptation, allowing radiologists to detect abnormalities more effectively. However, it is unclear whether density, or another image characteristic, drives visual adaptation. Purpose To investigate whether screening performance improves when screening mammography examinations are ordered for batch reading according to mammographic characteristics that may promote visual adaptation. Materials and Methods This retrospective multireader multicase study was performed with mammograms obtained between September 2016 and May 2019. The screening examinations, each consisting of four mammograms, were interpreted by 13 radiologists in three distinct orders: randomly, by increasing volumetric breast density (VBD), and based on a self-supervised learning (SSL) encoding (examinations automatically grouped as "looking similar"). An eye tracker recorded radiologists' eye movements during interpretation. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity of random-ordered readings were compared with those of VBD- and SSL-ordered readings using mixed-model analysis of variance. Reading time, fixation metrics, and perceived density were compared using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. Results Mammography examinations (75 with breast cancer, 75 without breast cancer) from 150 women (median age, 55 years [IQR, 50-63]) were read. The examinations ordered by increasing VBD versus randomly had an increased AUC (0.93 [95% CI: 0.91, 0.96] vs 0.92 [95% CI: 0.89, 0.95]; P = .009), without evidence of a difference in specificity (89% [871 of 975] vs 86% [837 of 975], P = .04) and sensitivity (both 81% [794 of 975 vs 788 of 975], P = .78), and a reduced reading time (24.3 vs 27.9 seconds, P < .001), fixation count (47 vs 52, P < .001), and fixation time in malignant regions (3.7 vs 4.6 seconds, P < .001). For SSL-ordered readings, there was no evidence of differences in AUC (0.92 [95% CI: 0.89, 0.95]; P = .70), specificity (84% [820 of 975], P = .37), sensitivity (80% [784 of 975], P = .79), fixation count (54, P = .05), or fixation time in malignant regions (4.6 seconds, P > .99) compared with random-ordered readings. Reading times were significantly higher for SSL-ordered readings compared with random-ordered readings (28.4 seconds, P = .02). Conclusion Screening mammography examinations ordered from low to high VBD improved screening performance while reducing reading and fixation times. © RSNA, 2024 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Grimm in this issue.

Clinical value of contralateral breast cancers detected by pre-operative MRI in patients diagnosed with DCIS: a population-based cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: For patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), data about the impact of breast MRI at primary diagnosis on the incidence and characteristics of contralateral breast cancers are scarce. METHODS: We selected all 8486 women diagnosed with primary DCIS in the Netherlands in 2011-2015 from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. The synchronous and metachronous detection of contralateral DCIS (cDCIS) and contralateral invasive breast cancer (cIBC) was assessed for patients who received an MRI upon diagnosis (MRI group) and for an age-matched control group without MRI. RESULTS: Nineteen percent of patients received an MRI, of which 0.8% was diagnosed with synchronous cDCIS and 1.3% with synchronous cIBC not found by mammography. The 5-year cumulative incidence of synchronous plus metachronous cDCIS was higher for the MRI versus age-matched control group (2.0% versus 0.9%, p = 0.02) and similar for cIBC (3.5% versus 2.3%, p = 0.17). The increased incidence of cDCIS was observed in patients aged < 50 years (sHR = 4.22, 95% CI: 1.19-14.99), but not in patients aged 50-74 years (sHR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.41-1.93). CONCLUSIONS: MRI at primary DCIS diagnosis detected additional synchronous cDCIS and cIBC, and was associated with a higher rate of metachronous cDCIS without decreasing the rate of metachronous cIBC. This finding was most evident in younger patients. KEY POINTS: • Magnetic resonance imaging at primary diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ detected an additional synchronous breast lesion in 2.1% of patients. • In patients aged younger than 50 years, the use of pre-operative MRI was associated with a fourfold increase in the incidence of a second contralateral DCIS without decreasing the incidence of metachronous invasive breast cancers up to 5 years after diagnosis. • In patients aged over 50 years, the use of pre-operative MRI did not result in a difference in the incidence of a second contralateral DCIS or metachronous invasive breast cancer.

Added Value of Prereading Screening Mammograms for Breast Cancer by Radiologic Technologists on Early Screening Outcomes.

Background In the Dutch breast cancer screening program, mammograms are preread by technologists to identify possible abnormalities, leading to "warning signals" (an audible and visual alert if the technologist observed an abnormality suspicious for cancer) for radiologists. The best moment to present these warning signals is unknown. Purpose To determine the effect that blinding of technologists' warning signals has on radiologists' early screening outcome measures during interpretation of mammograms. Materials and Methods In this prospective study from September 2017 to May 2019, on alternating months, radiologists were either blinded or nonblinded to the warning signals of the technologist when interpreting screening mammograms for breast cancer. All discrepancies between radiologists and technologists were reviewed during quality assurance sessions every 6 weeks, which could result in secondary recalls. The outcome measures of this study were recall rate, cancer detection rate, and positive predictive value of recall. A χ2 test was used to test for differences between the two groups. Results During the study period, 109 596 women (mean age, 62 years ± 7 [standard deviation]), including 53 291 in the blinded and 56 305 in the nonblinded groups, participated. The overall recall rate (including secondary recalls) was lower for women in the blinded group than in the nonblinded group (blinded: 1140 of 53 291 women [2.1%], nonblinded: 1372 of 56 305 women [2.4%]; P = .001). There was no evidence of cancer detection rate differences between the groups (blinded: 349 of 53 291 women [6.5 per 1000 screening examinations], nonblinded: 360 of 56 305 women [6.4 per 1000 screening examinations]; P = .75). The blinded group thus had a higher positive predictive value of recall (blinded: 349 of 1140 women [30.6%], nonblinded: 360 of 1372 women [26.2%]; P = .02). Conclusion While interpreting screening mammograms for breast cancer, radiologists blinded to technologists' warning signals had lower recall rates with higher positive predictive values than nonblinded radiologists, yet cancer detection rates seemed to remain unchanged. See also the editorial by Hofvind and Lee in this issue. © RSNA, 2021.

Failure of stereotactic core needle biopsy in women recalled for suspicious calcifications at screening mammography: frequency, causes, and final outcome in a multi-institutional, observational follow-up study.

OBJECTIVES: We determined the failure rate of stereotactic core needle biopsy (SCNB) and its causes and final outcome in women recalled for calcifications at screening mammography. METHODS: We included a consecutive series of 624,039 screens obtained in a Dutch screening region between January 2009 and July 2019. Radiology reports and pathology results were obtained of all recalled women during 2-year follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 3495 women (19.6% of 17,809 recalls) were recalled for suspicious calcifications. SCNB was indicated in 2818 women, of whom 12 had incomplete follow-up and another 12 women refused biopsy. DCIS or invasive cancer was diagnosed in 880 of the remaining 2794 women (31.5%). SCNB failed in 62 women (2.2%, 36/2794). These failures were mainly due to a too posterior (n = 30) or too superficial location (n = 17) of the calcifications or calcifications too faint for biopsy (n = 13). Of these 62 women, 10 underwent surgical biopsy, yielding one DCIS (intermediate grade) and two invasive cancers (one intermediate grade and one high grade) and another two women were diagnosed with DCIS (both high grade) at follow-up. Thus, the malignancy rate after SCNB failure was 8.1% (5/62). Calcifications were depicted neither at SCNB specimen radiography nor at pathology in 16 women after (repeated) SCNB (0.6%, 31/2732). None of them proved to have breast cancer at 2-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The failure rate of SCNB for suspicious calcifications is low but close surveillance is warranted, as breast cancer may be present in up to 8% of these women. KEY POINTS: • The failure rate of stereotactic core needle biopsy (SCNB) for calcifications recalled at screening mammography was 2.2%. • Failures were mainly due to calcifications that could not be reached by SCNB or calcifications too faint for biopsy. • The management after failed SCNB was various. At least, close surveillance with a low threshold for surgical biopsy is recommended as breast cancer may be present in up to 8% of women with SCNB failure.

Frequency and diagnostic outcome of bilateral recall at screening mammography.

Our study was performed to determine the frequency of recall for bilateral breast lesions at screening mammography and compare its outcome with respect to unilateral recall. We included 329 132 screening mammograms (34 889 initial screens and 294 243 subsequent screens) from a Dutch screening mammography program between January 2013 and January 2018. During a 2-year follow-up, we collected radiological data, pathology reports and surgical reports of all recalled women. At bilateral recall, the lesion with the highest Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System score was used as the index lesion when comparing screening mammography characteristics at bilateral vs unilateral recall. A total of 9806 women were recalled at screening (recall rate, 3.0%). Bilateral recall comprised 2.8% (271/9806) of all recalls. Biopsy was more frequently performed after bilateral recall than unilateral recall (54.6% [148/271] vs 44.1% [4201/9535], P < .001), yielding a lower positive predictive value (PPV) of biopsy after bilateral recall (42.6% vs 51.7%, P = .029). The PPV of recall was comparable for both groups (23.2% [63/271] vs 22.8% [2173/9535], P = .85). Invasive cancers after bilateral recall were larger than those diagnosed after unilateral recall (P = .02), but histological subtype, histologic grading, receptor status and proportions of lymph node positive cancers were comparable. Bilateral recall infrequently occurs at screening mammography. Biopsy is more frequently performed following bilateral recall, but the PPV of recall is similar for unilateral and bilateral recall. Invasive cancers of both groups show comparable pathological features except of a larger tumor size after bilateral recall.

Patterns of treatment and outcome of ductal carcinoma in situ in the Netherlands.

PURPOSE: To spare DCIS patients from overtreatment, treatment de-escalated over the years. This study evaluates the influence of these developments on the patterns of care in the treatment of DCIS with particular interest in the use of breast conserving surgery (BCS), radiotherapy following BCS and the use and type of axillary staging. METHODS: In this large population-based cohort study all women, aged 50-74 years diagnosed with DCIS from January 1989 until January 2019, were analyzed per two-year cohort. RESULTS: A total of 30,417 women were diagnosed with DCIS. The proportion of patients undergoing BCS increased from 47.7% in 1995-1996 to 72.7% in 2017-2018 (p < 0.001). Adjuvant radiotherapy following BCS increased from 28.9% (1995-1996) to 89.6% (2011-2012) and subsequently decreased to 74.9% (2017-2018; p < 0.001). Since its introduction, the use of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) increased to 63.1% in 2013-2014 and subsequently decreased to 52.8% in 2017-2018 (p < 0.001). Axillary surgery is already omitted in 55.8% of the patients undergoing BCS nowadays. The five-year invasive relapse-free survival (iRFS) for BCS with adjuvant radiotherapy in the period 1989-2010, was 98.7% [CI 98.4% - 99.0%], compared to 95.0% [CI 94.1% -95.8%] for BCS only (p < 0.001). In 2011-2018, this was 99.3% [CI 99.1% - 99.5%] and 98.8% [CI 98.2% - 99.4%] respectively (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows a shift toward less extensive treatment. DCIS is increasingly treated with BCS and less often followed by additional radiotherapy. The absence of radiotherapy still results in excellent iRFS. Axillary surgery is increasingly omitted in DCIS patients.

The Impact of Preoperative Breast MRI on Surgical Margin Status in Breast Cancer Patients Recalled at Biennial Screening Mammography: An Observational Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to examine the association between preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and surgical margin involvement, as well as to determine the factors associated with positive resection margins in screen-detected breast cancer patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery (BCS). METHODS: Breast cancer patients eligible for BCS and diagnosed after biennial screening mammography in the south of The Netherlands (2008-2017) were retrospectively included. Missing values were imputed and multivariable regression analyses were performed to analyze whether preoperative MRI was related to margin involvement after BCS, as well as to examine what factors were associated with positive resection margins, defined as more than focally (>4 mm) involved. RESULTS: Overall, 2483 patients with invasive breast cancer were enrolled, of whom 123 (5.0%) had more than focally involved resection margins. In multivariable regression analyses, preoperative MRI was associated with a reduced risk of positive resection margins after BCS (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.33-0.96). Lobular histology (adjusted OR 2.86, 95% CI 1.68-4.87), large tumor size (per millimeter increase, adjusted OR 1.05, 95% CI 1.03-1.07), high (>75%) mammographic density (adjusted OR 3.61, 95% CI 1.07-12.12), and the presence of microcalcifications (adjusted OR 4.45, 95% CI 2.69-7.37) and architectural distortions (adjusted OR 1.85, 95% CI 1.01-3.40) were independently associated with positive resection margins after BCS. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative MRI was associated with lower risk of positive resection margins in patients with invasive breast cancer eligible for BCS using multivariable analysis. Furthermore, specific mammographic characteristics and tumor characteristics were independently associated with positive resection margins after BCS.

Delayed breast cancer diagnosis after repeated recall at biennial screening mammography: an observational follow-up study from the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Delay in detection of breast cancer may worsen tumour characteristics, with progression of tumour size and a higher risk of metastatic lymph nodes. The purpose of this study was to investigate delayed breast cancer diagnosis after repeated recall for the same mammographic abnormality at screening. METHODS: This was a retrospective study performed in two cohorts of women enrolled in a mammography screening programme in the Netherlands. All women aged 50-75 who underwent biennial screening mammography either between January 1, 1997 and December 31, 2006 (cohort 1) or between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2016 (cohort 2) were included. RESULTS: The cohorts showed no difference in proportions of women with delayed breast cancer diagnosis of at least 2 years (2.2% versus 2.8%, P = 0.29). Most delays were caused by incorrect BI-RADS classifications after recall (74.2%). An increase in mean tumour size was seen when comparing sizes at initial false-negative recall and at diagnosis of breast cancer (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of women with a long delay in breast cancer confirmation following repeated recall at screening mammography has not decreased during 20 years of screening. These delays lead to larger tumour size at detection and may negatively influence prognosis.

Additional Breast Cancer Detection at Digital Screening Mammography through Quality Assurance Sessions between Technologists and Radiologists.

Background Screening technologists may function as readers in breast cancer screening programs. In the Netherlands, they attend quality assurance sessions. The frequency and characteristics of additional breast cancers detected through these sessions have not been reported. Purpose To determine the frequency and characteristics of cancers detected through quality assurance sessions. Materials and Methods This secondary analysis of a prospective cohort included 466 647 screening mammograms obtained between January 1, 2009, and January 1, 2017. Mammograms were single read by certified screening technologists before being double read by two certified screening radiologists who were not blinded to the technologists' reading. The technologists and a coordinating screening radiologist regularly discussed mammograms that the technologists considered suspicious but that did not prompt recall at radiologist double reading. The coordinating radiologist decided whether secondary recall was indicated. During a 2-year follow-up, radiologic and pathologic outcome data for all recalled women were obtained. Characteristics of cancers detected at radiologist double reading and those detected through quality assurance sessions were compared by using χ2 and Fisher exact tests. Results A total of 14 142 women (mean age, 59 years ± 7.8 [standard deviation]; range, 49-75 years) were recalled (recall rate, 3.0% [14 142 of 466 647]): 14 057 after radiologist double reading and 85 by the coordinating radiologists after quality assurance sessions. This resulted in 3156 screening-detected cancers (6.8 cancers detected per 1000 screenings), of which 26 (0.8% of screening-detected cancers [26 of 3156]) were detected after secondary recall through quality assurance sessions. The latter comprised eight ductal carcinomas in situ (88% intermediate or high grade [seven of eight]) and 18 invasive cancers (14 T1a-c and four T2+ cancers, 89% Nottingham grade I or II [16 of 18]). No significant differences in tumor characteristics were found (P values ranging from .22 to .95). Sensitivity of quality assurance sessions for additional cancer detection was 52% (26 of 50; 95% confidence interval: 38%, 66%). Conclusion The role of quality assurance sessions in additional cancer detection is limited. Tumor characteristics did not differ significantly from those of cancers detected at radiologist double reading. © RSNA, 2020.

Recall and Outcome of Screen-detected Microcalcifications during 2 Decades of Mammography Screening in the Netherlands National Breast Screening Program.

Background Trends in the detection of suspicious microcalcifications at mammography screening and the yield of these lesions after recall are unknown. Purpose To determine trends in recall and outcome of screen-detected microcalcifications during 20 years of mammography screening. Materials and Methods The authors performed a retrospective analysis of a consecutive series of 817 656 screening examinations (January 1997 to January 2017) in a national breast screening program. In 2009-2010 (transition period), screen-film mammography (SFM) was gradually replaced by full-field digital mammography (FFDM). The recalls of suspicious microcalcifications from all radiology reports and pathologic outcome of recalled women with 2-year follow-up were analyzed. Screening outcome in the era of SFM (1997-2008), the transition period (2009-2010), and the era of FFDM (2011-2016) were compared. Trends over time and variations between the SFM and FFDM periods were expressed by using proportions with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). In cases where the analysis based on the CI confirmed clear periods (eg, before and after introduction of FFDM), pre- and postchange outcomes were compared by using χ2 tests. Results A total of 18 592 women (median age, 59 years; interquartile range, 14 years) were recalled at mammography screening, 3556 of whom had suspicious microcalcifications. The recall rate for microcalcifications increased from 0.1% in 1997-1998 to 0.5% in 2015-2016 (P < .001). This was temporally associated with the change from SFM to FFDM. The recalls yielding ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) increased from 0.3 per 1000 screening examinations with SFM to 1.1 per 1000 screening examinations with FFDM (P < .001), resulting in a decrease in the positive predictive value for recall for suspicious microcalcifications from 51% to 33% (P < .001). More than half of all DCIS lesions were high grade (52.6%; 393 of 747). The distribution of DCIS grades was stable during the 20-year screening period (P = .36). Conclusion The recall rate for suspicious microcalcifications at mammographic screening increased during the past 2 decades, whereas the ductal carcinoma in situ detection rate increased less rapidly, resulting in a lower positive predictive value for recall. © RSNA, 2020.

Trends in frequency and outcome of high-risk breast lesions at core needle biopsy in women recalled at biennial screening mammography, a multiinstitutional study.

Between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2016, we studied the incidence, management and outcome of high-risk breast lesions in a consecutive series of 376,519 screens of women who received biennial screening mammography. During the 6-year period covered by the study, the proportion of women who underwent core needle biopsy (CNB) after recall remained fairly stable, ranging from 39.2% to 48.1% (mean: 44.2%, 5,212/11,783), whereas the proportion of high-risk lesions at CNB (i.e., flat epithelial atypia, atypical ductal hyperplasia, lobular carcinoma in situ and papillary lesions) gradually increased from 3.2% (25/775) in 2011 to 9.5% (86/901) in 2016 (p < 0.001). The mean proportion of high-risk lesions at CNB that were subsequently treated with diagnostic surgical excision was 51.4% (169/329) and varied between 41.0% and 64.3% through the years, but the excision rate for high-risk lesions per 1,000 screens and per 100 recalls increased from 0.25 (2011) to 0.70 (2016; p < 0.001) and from 0.81 (2011) to 2.50 (2016; p < 0.001), respectively. The proportion of all diagnostic surgical excisions showing in situ or invasive breast cancer was 29.0% (49/169) and varied from 22.2% (8/36) in 2014 to 38.5% (5/13) in 2011. In conclusion, the proportion of high-risk lesions at CNB tripled in a 6-year period, with a concomitant increased excision rate for these lesions. As the proportion of surgical excisions showing in situ or invasive breast cancer did not increase, a rising number of screened women underwent invasive surgical excision with benign outcome.

Correction to: Frequency and characteristics of contralateral breast abnormalities following recall at screening mammography.

The original version of this article, published on 17 April 2018, unfortunately contained a mistake.

Characteristics of screen-detected cancers following concordant or discordant recalls at blinded double reading in biennial digital screening mammography.

OBJECTIVES: To analyse which mammographic and tumour characteristics led to concordant versus discordant recalls at blinded double reading to further optimise our breast cancer screening programme. METHODS: We included a consecutive series of 99,013 screening mammograms obtained between July 2013 and January 2015. All mammograms were double read in a blinded fashion. Discordant readings were routinely recalled without consensus or arbitration. During the 2-year follow-up, relevant data of the recalled women were collected. We compared mammographic characteristics, screening outcome and tumour characteristics between concordant and discordant recalls. RESULTS: There were 2,543 concordant recalls (71.4%) and 997 discordant recalls (28.0%). The positive predictive value of a concordant recall was significantly higher (23.5% vs. 10.0%, p < 0.001). The proportion of BI-RADS 0 was significantly higher in the discordant recall group (75.7% vs. 56.3%, p < 0.001). Discordant recalls were more often an asymmetry or architectural distortion (21.8% vs. 13.2% and 9.3% vs. 6.5%, respectively, p < 0.001). There were no differences in the distribution of DCIS and invasive cancers and tumour characteristics were comparable for the two groups, except for a more favourable tumour grade in the discordant recall group (54.7% vs. 39.9% grade I tumours, p = 0.022). CONCLUSIONS: Screen-detected cancers detected by a discordant reading show a more favourable tumour grade than cancers diagnosed after a concordant recall. The higher proportion of asymmetries and architectural distortions in this group provide a possible target for improving screening programmes by additional training of screening radiologists and the implementation of digital breast tomosynthesis. KEY POINTS: • With blinded double reading of screening mammograms, screen-detected cancers detected by a discordant reading show a more favourable tumour grade than cancers diagnosed after a concordant recall. • The proportions of asymmetries and architectural distortions are higher in case of a discordant reading. • Possible improvement strategies could target additional training of screening radiologists and the implementation of digital breast tomosynthesis in breast cancer screening programmes.

Impact of the second reader on screening outcome at blinded double reading of digital screening mammograms.

BACKGROUND: To determine the impact of the second reader on screening outcome at blinded double reading of digital screening mammograms. METHODS: We included a consecutive series of 99,013 digital screening mammograms, obtained between July 2013 and January 2015 and double read in a blinded fashion. During 2-year follow-up, we collected radiology, surgery and pathology reports of recalled women. RESULTS: Single reading resulted in 2928 recalls and 616 screen-detected cancers (SDCs). The second reader recalled another 612 women, resulting in 82 additional SDCs. Addition of the second reader increased the recall rate (3.0% to 3.6%, p < 0.001), cancer detection rate (6.2-7.0 per 1000 screens, p < 0.001) and false positive recall rate (24.4-28.7 per 1000 screens, p < 0.001). Positive predictive value of recall (21.0% vs. 19.7%, p = 0.20) and of biopsy (52.1% vs. 50.9%, p = 0.56) were comparable for single reading and blinded double reading. Tumour characteristics were comparable for cancers detected by the first reader and cancers additionally detected by the second reader, except of a more favourable tumour grade in the latter group. CONCLUSIONS: At blinded double reading, the second reader significantly increases the cancer detection rate, at the expense of an increased recall rate and false positive recall rate.

Incorporation of the technologist's opinion for arbitration of discrepant assessments among radiologists at screening mammography.

PURPOSE: We determined whether the addition of the technologist's opinion may be helpful in deciding if discordant readings at blinded double reading should be recalled. METHODS: A consecutive series of 99,013 digital screening mammograms, obtained between July 2013 and January 2015, were included. All mammograms were first interpreted by a technologist and then double read in a blinded fashion by a team of 13 screening radiologists. All concordant and discordant positive readings among radiologists were recalled. RESULTS: Out of 3562 recalls, 998 women were recalled after a discordant reading. Of these women, 337 (33.8%) had a positive technologist assessment, of which 40 (11.9%) were diagnosed with breast cancer. Sixty women with a negative technologist assessment (60/661, 9.1%) were diagnosed with breast cancer (p = 0.16). Recall rate would have decreased with technologist arbitration (3.6% vs. 2.9%, p < 0.001). Cancer detection rate decreased with 8.5%, from 7.1/1000 screens to 6.5/1000 screens (p = 0.10). Among women with a positive technologist assessment, the probability of breast cancer was highest in case of suspicious microcalcifications and lowest for suspicious masses (30.4% (17/56) versus 7.0% (16/212), p < 0.001). Breast cancers were diagnosed in all groups of mammographic abnormalities, except in women with a suspicious asymmetry and a negative technologist assessment. CONCLUSIONS: Assessment by a technologist does not provide a significant discriminating ability in case of a discordant radiologist reading and, taking into account the decrease in cancer detection rate, does not appear to be a suitable arbitration strategy for discordant recalls at blinded double reading.

Frequency and characteristics of contralateral breast abnormalities following recall at screening mammography.

PURPOSE: To determine the frequency and characteristics of contralateral, non-recalled breast abnormalities following recall at screening mammography. METHODS: We included a series of 130,338 screening mammograms performed between 1 January 2014 and 1 January 2016. During the 1-year follow-up, clinical data were collected for all recalls. Screening outcome was determined for recalled women with or without evaluation of contralateral breast abnormalities. RESULTS: Of 3,995 recalls (recall rate 3.1%), 129 women (3.2%) underwent assessment of a contralateral, non-recalled breast abnormality. Most lesions were detected at clinical mammography and/or breast tomosynthesis (101 women, 78.3%). The biopsy rate was similar for recalled lesions and contralateral, non-recalled lesions, but the positive predictive value of biopsy was higher for recalled lesions (p = 0.01). A comparable proportion of the recalled lesions and contralateral, non-recalled lesions were malignant (p = 0.1). The proportion of ductal carcinoma in situ was similar for both groups, as well as invasive cancer characteristics and type of surgical treatment. CONCLUSIONS: About 3% of recalled women underwent evaluation of contralateral, non-recalled breast lesions. Evaluation of the contralateral breast after recall is important as we found that 15.5% of contralateral, non-recalled lesions were malignant. Contralateral cancers and screen-detected cancers show similar characteristics, stage and surgical treatment. KEY POINTS: • 3% of recalled women underwent evaluation of contralateral, non-recalled lesions • One out of seven contralateral, non-recalled lesions was malignant • A contralateral cancer was diagnosed in 0.5% of recalls • Screen-detected cancers and non-recalled, contralateral cancers showed similar histological characteristics • Tumour stage and surgical treatment were similar for both groups.

Trends in incidence and tumour grade in screen-detected ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive breast cancer.

PURPOSE: In a biennial screening mammography programme, we analysed the trends in incidence of screen-detected DCIS and invasive breast cancers in the era of screen-film mammography (SFM) screening, the period of the transition to full-field digital mammography (FFDM) screening and the period of FFDM screening. We also investigated a possible association between the incidence and grading of screen-detected DCIS and invasive breast cancer. METHODS: In the southern part of the Netherlands, FFDM screening gradually replaced SFM screening between May 2009 and April 2010. We included a consecutive series of 484, 422 screens obtained between July 2005 and July 2015 and divided these screens into three groups; SFM-only cohort, transition cohort and FFDM-only cohort. RESULTS: A total of 3059 referred women were diagnosed with DCIS (n = 623) or invasive breast cancer (n = 2436). The majority of DCIS were high-grade (48.2%), whereas the majority of the invasive breast cancers were low-grade (45.4%) or intermediate-grade (41.6%). The cancer detection rate (CDR) per 1000 screened women showed the same distribution by grade in both groups. The transition to FFDM was characterised by an increased overall detection rate of invasive cancers. CONCLUSIONS: Screening mammography detects mostly high-grade DCIS and low- or intermediate-grade invasive cancers. The grade distribution as well as the CDR in the years after the introduction of FFDM remained stable compared to the era of SFM screening. By diagnosing and treating high-grade DCIS, which otherwise may develop into high-grade invasive carcinoma, our findings provide new evidence for the beneficial value of screening mammography programmes.