Breast Cancer Screening With Automated Breast US and Mammography vs Handheld US and Mammography in Women With Dense Breasts in a Real-World Clinical Setting.

OBJECTIVE: We compared the performance of 2 breast cancer screening approaches, automated breast US (ABUS) with same-day mammography (ABUS/MG) and handheld US (HHUS) with same-day mammography (HHUS/MG), in women with dense breasts to better understand the relative usefulness of ABUS and HHUS in a real-world clinical setting. METHODS: In this institutional review board-approved, retrospective observational study, we evaluated all ABUS/MG and HHUS/MG screening examinations performed at our institution from May 2013 to September 2021. BI-RADS categories, biopsy pathology results, and diagnostic test characteristics (eg, sensitivity, specificity) were compared between the 2 screening approaches using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: A total of 1120 women with dense breasts were included in this study, with 852 undergoing ABUS/MG and 268 undergoing HHUS/MG. The sensitivities of ABUS/MG and HHUS/MG were 100% (5/5) and 75.0% (3/4), respectively, which was not a statistically significant difference (P = .444). The ABUS/MG approach demonstrated a slightly higher specificity (97.4% [825/847] vs 94.3% [249/264]; P = .028), higher accuracy (97.4% [830/852] vs 94.0% [252/268]; P = .011), and lower biopsy recommendation rate (3.2% [27/852] vs 6.7% [18/268]; P = .019) than the HHUS/MG approach in our patient population. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that ABUS/MG performs comparably with HHUS/MG as a breast cancer screening approach in women with dense breasts in a real-world clinical setting, with the ABUS/MG approach demonstrating a similar sensitivity and slightly higher specificity than the HHUS/MG approach. Additional variables, such as patient experience and physician time, may help determine which imaging approach to employ in specific clinical settings.

Patient Experience of Women With Dense Breasts Undergoing Screening Contrast-Enhanced Mammography.

OBJECTIVE: We investigated patient experience with screening contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) to determine whether a general population of women with dense breasts would accept CEM in a screening setting. METHODS: In this institutional review board-approved prospective study, patients with heterogeneous and extremely dense breasts on their mammogram were invited to undergo screening CEM and complete pre-CEM and post-CEM surveys. On the pre-CEM survey, patients were asked about their attitudes regarding supplemental screening in general. On the post-CEM survey, patients were asked about their experience undergoing screening CEM, including causes and severity of any discomfort and whether they would consider undergoing screening CEM again in the future or recommend it to a friend. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-three women were surveyed before and after screening CEM. Most patients, 97.5% (159/163), reported minimal or no unpleasantness associated with undergoing screening CEM. In addition, 91.4% (149/163) said they would probably or very likely undergo screening CEM in the future if it cost the same as a traditional screening mammogram, and 95.1% (155/163) said they would probably or very likely recommend screening CEM to a friend. Patients in this study, who were all willing to undergo CEM, more frequently reported a family history of breast cancer than a comparison cohort of women with dense breasts (58.2% vs 47.1%, P = .027). CONCLUSION: Patients from a general population of women with dense breasts reported a positive experience undergoing screening CEM, suggesting screening CEM might be well received by this patient population, particularly if the cost was comparable with traditional screening mammography.

Factors Associated With Breast Cancer Screening Behaviors Among Women With Dense Breasts.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to identify patient factors associated with patient-reported screening behaviors in women with dense breasts. METHODS: An IRB-approved survey study of women with dense breasts presenting for annual screening mammography at an outpatient imaging center was previously conducted from March 2017 to February 2018. The survey included questions regarding mammographic screening frequency and recent participation in supplemental screening. These survey data were combined post hoc with clinical and demographic data and socioeconomic data imputed from census data. Logistic regression was used to identify patient factors associated with reported screening behaviors. RESULTS: Surveys were completed by 508 women (median age, 59.0 years; range, 31.0-86.0 years) with dense breasts. Multivariable analysis demonstrated an independent association of undergoing mammographic screening annually with a history of discussing breast density with a doctor (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 2.60; P = 0.019). Undergoing supplemental screening in the previous three years was independently associated with younger age (AOR, 1.59; P = 0.004), strong family history of breast cancer (AOR, 3.84; P = 0.027), higher perceived personal risk for breast cancer (AOR, 3.47; P = 0.004), and increased concern about radiation associated with screening examinations (AOR, 3.31; P = 0.006). CONCLUSION: Women with dense breasts who had discussed breast density with a doctor were more likely to report undergoing annual screening mammography, while younger women and women with a strong family history of breast cancer, higher perceived personal risk for breast cancer, or greater concern about radiation were more likely to report recently undergoing supplemental screening.

Preferences and Attitudes Regarding Adjunct Breast Cancer Screening Among Patients with Dense Breasts.

OBJECTIVE: New breast screening modalities are being investigated to address the need for more sensitive breast cancer screening in women with dense breasts. We investigated the preferences and attitudes of these patients regarding adjunct screening modalities to help evaluate the acceptability of these exams. METHODS: In this institutional review board-approved prospective study, patients with dense breasts on their prior mammogram were invited to complete a survey. Patients were asked to estimate their personal breast cancer risk compared with peers, indicate their level of concern related to screening callbacks, radiation exposure, and intravenous (IV) contrast allergies, and identify which factors might deter them from getting adjunct screening exams. RESULTS: Five hundred eight patients with dense breasts presenting for screening mammography completed surveys. While most patients (304/508, 59.9%) felt it was likely or very likely that cancer could be missed on their mammogram, only 8.9% (45/508) had undergone adjunct screening exams in the past 3 years. The most commonly cited deterrents to adjunct screening were cost (340/508, 66.9%), pain (173/508, 34.1%), and concern that adjunct screening could lead to additional procedures (158/508, 31.1%). When asked to select among three hypothetical breast cancer screening modalities, patients strongly preferred the more sensitive examination, even if this involved greater cost (162/508, 31.9%) or IV-contrast administration (315/508, 62.0%). CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that patients with dense breasts prefer adjunct screening exams that are both sensitive and inexpensive, although an increase in sensitivity could outweigh additional cost or even IV-line placement.