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.

A scoping review of programme specific mammographic breast density related guidelines and practices within breast screening programmes.

Introduction: High mammographic breast density (MBD) is an independent breast cancer risk factor. In organised breast screening settings, discussions are ongoing regarding the optimal clinical role of MBD to help guide screening decisions. The aim of this scoping review was to provide an overview of current practices incorporating MBD within population-based breast screening programmes and from professional organisations internationally. Methods: This scoping review was conducted in accordance with the framework proposed by the Joanna Briggs Institute. The electronic databases, MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, CINAHL Plus, Scopus, and Web of Science were systematically searched. Grey literature sources, websites of international breast screening programmes, and relevant government organisations were searched to identify further relevant literature. Data from identified materials were extracted and presented as a narrative summary. Results: The search identified 78 relevant documents. Documents were identified for breast screening programmes in 18 countries relating to screening intervals for women with dense breasts, MBD measurement, reporting, notification, and guiding supplemental screening. Documents were identified from 18 international professional organisations with the majority of material relating to supplemental screening guidance for women with dense breasts. Key factors collated during the data extraction process as relevant considerations for MBD practices included the evidence base needed to inform decision-making processes and resources (healthcare system costs, radiology equipment, and workforce planning). Conclusions: This scoping review summarises current practices and guidelines incorporating MBD in international population-based breast screening settings and highlights the absence of consensus between organised breast screening programmes incorporating MBD in current breast screening protocols.

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.