Assessing the Relationship between Radiology Department Research Funding and Institutional Community Inclusion and Investment.

Background Health care access disparities and lack of inclusion in clinical research have been well documented for marginalized populations. However, few studies exist examining the research funding of institutions that serve historically underserved groups. Purpose To assess the relationship between research funding awarded to radiology departments by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Lown Institute Hospitals Index rankings for inclusivity and community benefit. Materials and Methods This retrospective study included radiology departments awarded funding from the NIH between 2017 and 2021. The 2021 Lown Institute Hospitals Index rankings for inclusivity and community benefit were examined. The inclusivity metric measures how similar a hospital's patient population is to the surrounding community in terms of income, race and ethnicity, and education level. The community benefit metric measures charity care spending, Medicaid as a proportion of patient revenue, and other community benefit spending. Linear regression and Pearson correlation coefficients (r values) were used to evaluate the relationship between aggregate NIH radiology department research funding and measures of inclusivity and community benefit. Results Seventy-five radiology departments that received NIH funding ranging from $195 000 to $216 879 079 were included. A negative correlation was observed between the amount of radiology department research funding received and institutional rankings for serving patients from racial and/or ethnic minorities (r = -0.34; P < .001), patients with low income (r = -0.44; P < .001), and patients with lower levels of education (r = -0.46; P < .001). No correlation was observed between the amount of radiology department research funding and institutional rankings for charity care spending (r = -0.19; P = .06), community investment (r = -0.04; P = .68), and Medicaid as a proportion of patient revenue (r = -0.10; P = .22). Conclusion Radiology departments that received more NIH research funding were less likely to serve patients from racial and/or ethnic minorities and patients who had low income or lower levels of education. © RSNA, 2024 See also the editorial by Mehta and Rosen in this issue.

The Remote Academic Radiologist: AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review.

The importance of developing a robust remote workforce in academic radiology has come to the forefront due to several converging factors. COVID-19, and the abrupt transformation it precipitated in terms of how radiologists worked, has been the biggest impetus for change; concurrent factors such as increasing examination volumes and radiologist burnout have also contributed. How to best advance the most desirable and favorable aspects of remote work while preserving an academic environment that fulfills the tripartite mission is a critical challenge that nearly all academic institutions face today. In this article, we discuss current challenges in academic radiology, including effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, from three perspectives-the radiologist, the learner, and the health system-addressing the following topics: productivity, recruitment, wellness, clinical supervision, mentorship and research, educational engagement, radiologist access, investments in technology, and radiologist value. Throughout, we focus on the opportunities and drawbacks of remote work, to help guide its effective and reliable integration into academic radiology practices.

Fostering Patient-Centered Equitable Care in Radiology: AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review.

Patient-centered care (PCC) and equity are two of the six core domains of quality health care, according to the Institute of Medicine. Exceptional imaging care requires radiology practices to provide patient-centered (i.e., respectful and responsive to individual patient preferences, needs, and values) and equitable (i.e., does not vary in quality on the basis of gender, ethnicity, geographic location, or socioeconomic status) care. Specific barriers that prevent the delivery of patient-centered equitable care include information gaps, breaches of trust, organizational medical culture, and financial incentives. Information gaps limit practitioners in understanding the lived experience of patients. Breaches of trust prevent patients from seeking needed medical care. Organizational medical cultures may not be centered around patient experiences. Financial incentives can impede practitioners' ability to spend the time and resources required to meet patient goals and needs. Intentional approaches that integrate core principles in both PCC and health equity are required to deliver high-quality patient-centered imaging care for diverse patient populations. The purpose of this AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review is to review the origins of the PCC movement in radiology, characterize connections between the PCC and health equity movements, and describe concrete examples of ways to foster patient-centered equitable care in radiology.

Disparities in Same-Day Diagnostic Imaging in Breast Cancer Screening: Impact of an Immediate-Read Screening Mammography Program Implemented During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND. The need for second visits between screening mammography and diagnostic imaging contributes to disparities in the time to breast cancer diagnosis. During the COVID-19 pandemic, an immediate-read screening mammography program was implemented to reduce patient visits and decrease time to diagnostic imaging. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to measure the impact of an immediate-read screening program with focus on disparities in same-day diagnostic imaging after abnormal findings are made at screening mammography. METHODS. In May 2020, an immediate-read screening program was implemented whereby a dedicated breast imaging radiologist interpreted all screening mammograms in real time; patients received results before discharge; and efforts were made to perform any recommended diagnostic imaging during the visit (performed by different radiologists). Screening mammographic examinations performed from June 1, 2019, through October 31, 2019 (preimplementation period), and from June 1, 2020, through October 31, 2020 (postimplementation period), were retrospectively identified. Patient characteristics were recorded from the electronic medical record. Multivariable logistic regression models incorporating patient age, race and ethnicity, language, and insurance type were estimated to identify factors associated with same-day diagnostic imaging. Screening metrics were compared between periods. RESULTS. A total of 8222 preimplementation and 7235 postimplementation screening examinations were included; 521 patients had abnormal screening findings before implementation, and 359 after implementation. Before implementation, 14.8% of patients underwent same-day diagnostic imaging after abnormal screening mammograms. This percentage increased to 60.7% after implementation. Before implementation, patients who identified their race as other than White had significantly lower odds than patients who identified their race as White of undergoing same-day diagnostic imaging after receiving abnormal screening results (adjusted odds ratio, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.10-0.86; p = .03). After implementation, the odds of same-day diagnostic imaging were not significantly different between patients of other races and White patients (adjusted odds ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.50-1.71; p = .80). After implementation, there was no significant difference in race and ethnicity between patients who underwent and those who did not undergo same-day diagnostic imaging after receiving abnormal results of screening mammography (p > .05). The rate of abnormal interpretation was significantly lower after than it was before implementation (5.0% vs 6.3%; p < .001). Cancer detection rate and PPV1 (PPV based on positive findings at screening examination) were not significantly different before and after implementation (p > .05). CONCLUSION. Implementation of the immediate-read screening mammography program reduced prior racial and ethnic disparities in same-day diagnostic imaging after abnormal screening mammograms. CLINICAL IMPACT. An immediate-read screening program provides a new paradigm for improved screening mammography workflow that allows more rapid diagnostic workup with reduced disparities in care.

Potential of using mammography screening appointments to identify high-risk women: cross sectional survey results from the national health interview survey.

PURPOSE: Mammography screening encounters may represent ideal opportunities to identify high-risk women for risk-based screening. During mammography appointments, radiology practices evaluate breast density and ascertain known breast cancer risk factors. Our purpose was to evaluate the potential for mammographic screening encounters to identify high-risk women by estimating the (1) proportion of high-risk women who report that they have undergone mammographic screening and the (2) proportion of high-risk women who receive recommendations for breast MRI screening. METHODS: Women ages 30-85 without breast cancer histories were included from the 2015 National Health Interview Survey, a nationally representative cross-sectional household survey (response rate 80%). Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool was used to determine high-risk (lifetime risk>20%). Among high-risk women, primary outcome was proportion reporting mammography screening, secondary outcome was receipt of a breast MRI recommendation after recent mammogram, accounting for complex survey design. RESULTS: 14,958 women were included. 1.0% were high-risk of whom: 91.9% ever had a mammogram, 68.0% had a mammogram within the last year, 81.5% had a mammogram within the last 2 years. 6.4% were recommended to undergo breast MRI. Among high-risk women, women with dense breast tissue were more likely (OR 496.0, 95%CI 52.6,4674.0) and older women were less likely (OR 0.91, 95%CI 0.84,0.99) to receive recommendations for breast MRI. CONCLUSIONS: Among high-risk women, 92% reported undergoing at least one mammogram in their lives. 94% did not receive recommendations for breast MRI screening and 32% did not have a mammogram within the last year. To identify high-risk women, breast imaging centers should consider determining lifetime breast cancer risk during mammography screening visits.

Retrospective Review of Preoperative Radiofrequency Tag Localization of Breast Lesions in 848 Patients.

BACKGROUND. Advantages of radiofrequency tags for preoperative breast lesion localization include decoupling of tag placement from surgical schedules and improved patient comfort. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of a preoperative localization radiofrequency tag system for breast lesions requiring surgical excision. METHODS. The cohort for this retrospective study included consecutive patients who underwent image-guided needle localization with radiofrequency tags before surgical excision from July 12, 2018, to July 31, 2019. Images and medical records were reviewed to evaluate the pathologic diagnoses serving as indications for tag placement, imaging guidance for tag placement, number of tags placed, and target lesion type. Tag placement technical accuracy rate (defined as deployment of the tag within 1 cm of the edge of the target), success (defined as technical accuracy without complication), and surgical margin and reexcision status were evaluated. RESULTS. A total of 1013 tags were placed under imaging guidance in 848 patients (mean age, 60 years; range, 23-96 years) and 847 subsequently underwent surgical excision. Tags were most commonly placed for invasive carcinoma (537/1013, 53.0%), ductal carcinoma in situ (138/1013, 13.6%), and high-risk lesions (289/1013, 28.5%). A total of 673 (66.4%) tags were deployed under mammographic guidance, whereas 340 (33.6%) were placed under sonographic guidance. Two or more tags were placed in 149 of 848 patients (17.6%). Targeted lesion types primarily included masses (448/1013, 44.2%), biopsy clip markers (331/1013, 32.7%), and calcifications (155/1013, 15.3%). Technical accuracy of placement was achieved in 1004 (99.1%) tags. Of the nine inaccurate tag placements, seven (77.8%) required an additional tag or wire placement. Seven (0.7%) biopsy clip markers were displaced within the breast or removed by the tag device during placement. No complications were reported intraoperatively. Therefore, success was achieved in 997 (98.4%) tags. Tags were successfully retrieved in all 847 patients who underwent surgery. Of the 568 patients with a preoperative diagnosis of carcinoma, 86 (15.1%) had positive or close surgical margins requiring surgical reexcision. CONCLUSION. Preoperative image-guided localization with radiofrequency tags is a safe and feasible technique for breast lesions requiring surgery. CLINICAL IMPACT. Radiofrequency tag localization is an acceptable alternative to needle or wire localization, offering the potential for improved patient workflow and experience.

Obesity and breast cancer screening: Cross-sectional survey results from the behavioral risk factor surveillance system.

BACKGROUND: Postmenopausal obese women demonstrate an elevated breast cancer risk and experience increased breast cancer morbidity and mortality compared with women with a normal body mass index (BMI). However, to the authors' knowledge, prior studies have yielded inconclusive results regarding the effects of obesity on mammography screening adherence. Using national cross-sectional survey data, the objective of the current study was to assess the current association between increasing BMI and use of mammography screening. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey data from the 2016 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, a state-based national telephone survey of noninstitutionalized adults in the United States, was used to identify the association between mammography screening use and increasing incremental BMI categories, including normal (18.5-24.9 kg/m2 ), overweight (25-29.9 kg/m2 ), obese class I (30-34.9 kg/m2 ), obese class II (35-39.9 kg/m2 ), and obese class III (>40 kg/m2 ), with adjustments for potential confounders. A multivariable logistic regression model was used to evaluate the effect of each BMI category on self-reported mammography use, using unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios. Effect modification by race/ethnicity was determined by testing interaction terms using Wald tests. RESULTS: Of 116,343 survey respondents, 33.5% (38,984 respondents) had a normal BMI, 32.6% (37,969 respondents) were overweight, 19.3% (22,416 respondents) were classified as obese class I, 8.4% (9791 respondents) were classified as obese class II, and 6.2% (7183 respondents) were classified as obese class III. There was no statistically significant difference (P < .05) observed with regard to mammography use between women with a normal BMI and obese women from each obese class (classes I-III) when compared individually. There also was no evidence of effect modification by race (P = .53). CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to prior reports, the results of the current study demonstrated no association between obesity and adherence to screening mammography. These findings may relate to the increasing social acceptance of obesity among women from all racial/ethnic groups and the removal of weight-related facility-level barriers over time.

Readability of Online Patient Educational Materials Related to Breast Lesions Requiring Surgery.

Purpose To evaluate readability of websites that are commonly accessed for information on breast lesions requiring surgery. Materials and Methods An internet search using three malignant and eight nonmalignant breast lesions that traditionally require lumpectomy or excisional biopsy as search terms was conducted to identify websites commonly accessed for patient information on breast lesions requiring surgery. Nine websites with information on breast diagnoses were identified based on search engine results for each breast lesion queried. Available patient-directed information was downloaded for each lesion from each website on May 15, 2018. Grade-level readability of downloaded content for each lesion was then determined by using generalized estimating equations, with observations nested within readability metrics from each website. Readability of associated terms breast biopsy, breast cancer, and breast surgery was also evaluated with the same method. Results were compared with American Medical Association (AMA) recommended readability parameters (sixth-grade reading level). All interval estimates were calculated for 95% confidence. Results Average grade level readability score of health information on breast lesions requiring surgery was 11.7, which exceeded the AMA parameters. Information on Wikipedia was written at the highest reading level (grade level readability score, 14.2), while information on the National Institutes of Health website ( http://cancer.gov ) was written at the lowest reading level (grade level readability score, 9.7). Educational materials on malignant breast lesions (grade level readability score, 12.3) were written at a higher reading level than were those on nonmalignant breast lesions (grade level readability score,11.4). Information on the terms breast biopsy (grade level readability score, 10.9), breast cancer (grade level readability score, 10.6), and breast surgery (grade level readability score, 11.1) were all written above a sixth-grade reading level. Conclusion Readability of current online resources on breast biopsy lesions traditionally requiring surgery may be too complex for the general public to comprehend, leading to misinformation and confusion. © RSNA, 2019 See also the editorial by Haygood in this issue.

Patterns of Surveillance Advanced Imaging and Serum Tumor Biomarker Testing Following Launch of the Choosing Wisely Initiative.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to assess advanced imaging (bone scan, CT, or PET/CT) and serum tumor biomarker use in asymptomatic breast cancer survivors during the surveillance period. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Cancer registry records for 2,923 women diagnosed with primary breast cancer in Washington State between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2014, were linked with claims data from 2 regional commercial insurance plans. Clinical data including demographic and tumor characteristics were collected. Evaluation and management codes from claims data were used to determine advanced imaging and serum tumor biomarker testing during the peridiagnostic and surveillance phases of care. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to identify clinical factors and patterns of peridiagnostic imaging and biomarker testing associated with surveillance advanced imaging. RESULTS: Of 2,923 eligible women, 16.5% (n=480) underwent surveillance advanced imaging and 31.8% (n=930) received surveillance serum tumor biomarker testing. Compared with women diagnosed before the launch of the Choosing Wisely campaign in 2012, later diagnosis was associated with lower use of surveillance advanced imaging (odds ratio [OR], 0.68; 95% CI, 0.52-0.89). Factors significantly associated with use of surveillance advanced imaging included increasing disease stage (stage III: OR, 3.65; 95% CI, 2.48-5.38), peridiagnostic advanced imaging use (OR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.33-2.31), and peridiagnostic serum tumor biomarker testing (OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.01-1.80). CONCLUSIONS: Although use of surveillance advanced imaging in asymptomatic breast cancer survivors has declined since the launch of the Choosing Wisely campaign, frequent use of surveillance serum tumor biomarker testing remains prevalent, representing a potential target for further efforts to reduce low-value practices.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of English language online patient education materials in breast cancer: Is readability the only story?

BACKGROUND: Online patient education materials (OPEMs) are an increasingly popular resource for women seeking information about breast cancer. The AMA recommends written patient material to be at or below a 6th grade level to meet the general public's health literacy. Metrics such as quality, understandability, and actionability also heavily influence the usability of health information, and thus should be evaluated alongside readability. PURPOSE: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to determine: 1) Average readability scores and reporting methodologies of breast cancer readability studies; and 2) Inclusion frequency of additional health literacy-associated metrics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A registered systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in Ovid MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase.com, CENTRAL via Ovid, and ClinicalTrials.gov in June 2022 in adherence with the PRISMA 2020 statement. Eligible studies performed readability analyses on English-language breast cancer-related OPEMs. Study characteristics, readability data, and reporting of non-readability health literacy metrics were extracted. Meta-analysis estimates were derived from generalized linear mixed modeling. RESULTS: The meta-analysis included 30 studies yielding 4462 OPEMs. Overall, average readability was 11.81 (95% CI [11.14, 12.49]), with a significant difference (p < 0.001) when grouped by OPEM categories. Commercial organizations had the highest average readability at 12.2 [11.3,13.0]; non-profit organizations had one of the lowest at 11.3 [10.6,12.0]. Readability also varied by index, with New Fog, Lexile, and FORCAST having the lowest average scores (9.4 [8.6, 10.3], 10.4 [10.0, 10.8], and 10.7 [10.2, 11.1], respectively). Only 57% of studies calculated average readability with more than two indices. Only 60% of studies assessed other OPEM metrics associated with health literacy. CONCLUSION: Average readability of breast cancer OPEMs is nearly double the AMA's recommended 6th grade level. Readability and other health literacy-associated metrics are inconsistently reported in the current literature. Standardization of future readability studies, with a focus on holistic evaluation of patient materials, may aid shared decision-making and be critical to increased screening rates and breast cancer awareness.

Prevalence of Modifiable Breast Cancer Risk Factors and Potential Opportunities for Primary Prevention Among Women Engaged in Screening Mammography: National Health Interview Survey Results.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of modifiable breast cancer risk factors among women engaged in screening mammography using nationally representative cross-sectional survey data and to inform potential opportunities for breast facilities to contribute to primary prevention. METHODS: 2018 National Health Interview Survey respondents who were women ages 40-74 years without history of breast cancer were included and then categorized based on whether they reported screening mammography within the prior two years. Proportions of these women reporting evidence-based modifiable breast cancer risk factors, including elevated body mass index (BMI), lack of physical activity, or moderate or heavy alcohol consumption were calculated and stratified by demographics. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the association between these risk factors and sociodemographic characteristics. RESULTS: Among 4989 women meeting inclusion criteria and reporting screening mammography, 79% reported at least one modifiable risk factor. Elevated BMI was the most reported risk factor (67%), followed by lack of physical activity (24%) and alcohol consumption (16%). The majority of each race/ethnicity category reported at least one modifiable risk factor, with the highest proportion reported by Black respondents (90%). Asian, college educated, and higher-income participants were less likely to have at least one modifiable risk factor. CONCLUSION: Modifiable breast cancer risk factors are prevalent among women engaged in screening mammography. This provides potential opportunities for breast imaging facilities to contribute to the primary prevention of breast cancer by providing resources for lifestyle modification at the time of screening mammography.

Patient, Provider, and Practice Characteristics Predicting Use of Diagnostic Imaging in Primary Care: Cross-Sectional Data From the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey.

OBJECTIVE: To determine imaging utilization rates in outpatient primary care visits and factors influencing likelihood of imaging use. METHODS: We used 2013 to 2018 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey cross-sectional data. All visits to primary care clinics during the study period were included in the sample. Descriptive statistics on visit characteristics including imaging utilization were calculated. Logistic regression analyses evaluated the influence of a variety of patient-, provider-, and practice-level variables on the odds of obtaining diagnostic imaging, further subdivided by modality (radiographs, CT, MRI, and ultrasound). The data's survey weighting was accounted for to produce valid national-level estimates of imaging use for US office-based primary care visits. RESULTS: Using survey weights, approximately 2.8 billion patient visits were included. Diagnostic imaging was ordered at 12.5% of visits with radiographs the most common (4.3%) and MRI the least common (0.8%). Imaging utilization was similar or greater among minority patients compared with White, non-Hispanic patients. Physician assistants used imaging at higher rates than physicians, in particular CT at 6.5% of visits compared with 0.7% for doctors of medicine and doctors of osteopathic medicine (odds ratio 5.67, 95% confidence interval 4.07-7.88). CONCLUSION: Disparities in rates of imaging utilization for minorities seen in other health care settings were not present in this sample of primary care visits, supporting that access to primary care is a path to promote health equity. Higher rates of imaging utilization among advanced-level practitioners highlight an opportunity to evaluate imaging appropriateness and promote equitable, high-value imaging among all practitioners.

Mammography Screening Outreach Through Non-Primary Care-Based Services.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the proportion of patients visiting urgent care centers or emergency departments or being hospitalized who were not up to date with recommended mammography screening to assess the potential impact of non-primary care-based cancer screening interventions. METHODS: Adult participants from the 2019 National Health Interview Survey were included. Among participants not up to date with breast cancer screening guidelines based on ACR recommendations, the proportion of patients reporting an urgent care, emergency department visit, or hospitalization within the last year was estimated accounting for complex survey sampling design features. Multiple variable logistic regression analyses were then conducted to evaluate the association between sociodemographic characteristics and mammography screening adherence. RESULTS: The study included 9,139 women between the ages of 40 and 74 years without history of breast cancer. Of these respondents, 44.9% did not report mammography screening within the last year. Among participants who did not report mammography screening, 29.2% reported visiting an urgent care center, 21.8% reported visiting an emergency room, and 9.6% reported being hospitalized within the last year. The majority of patients receiving non-primary care-based services, who were not up to date with mammography screening, were from historically underserved groups including Black and Hispanic patients. CONCLUSION: Nearly 10% to 30% of participants who have not obtained recommended breast cancer screening have visited non-primary care-based services including urgent care centers or emergency rooms or have been hospitalized within the last year.

Impact of High Neighborhood Socioeconomic Deprivation on Access to Accredited Breast Imaging Screening and Diagnostic Facilities.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the presence or absence of accredited breast imaging facilities in ZIP codes with high or low neighborhood socioeconomic deprivation. METHODS: A retrospective ecological study design was used. Neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage rankings at the ZIP code level were defined by the University of Wisconsin Neighborhood Atlas Area Deprivation Index. Outcomes included the presence or absence of FDA- or ACR-accredited mammographic facilities, accredited stereotactic biopsy or breast ultrasound facilities, and ACR Breast Imaging Centers of Excellence. US Department of Agriculture rural-urban commuting area codes were used to define urban and rural status. Access to breast imaging facilities in high-disadvantage (≥97th percentile) and low-disadvantage (≤3rd percentile) ZIP codes was compared using χ2 tests, stratified by urban or rural status. RESULTS: Among 41,683 ZIP codes, 2,796 were classified as high disadvantage (1,160 rural, 1,636 urban) and 1,028 as low disadvantage (39 rural, 989 urban). High-disadvantage ZIP codes were more likely rural (P < .001) and less likely to have FDA-certified mammographic facilities (28% versus 35%, P < .001), ACR-accredited stereotactic biopsy (7% versus 15%, P < .001), breast ultrasound (9% versus 23%, P < .001), or Breast Imaging Centers of Excellence (7% versus 16%, P < .001). Among urban areas, high-disadvantage ZIP codes were less likely to have FDA-certified mammographic facilities (30% versus 36%, P = .002), ACR-accredited stereotactic biopsy (10% versus 16%, P < .001), breast ultrasound (13% versus 23%, P < .001), and Breast Imaging Centers of Excellence (10% versus 16%, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: People living in ZIP codes with high socioeconomic disadvantage are less likely to have accredited breast imaging facilities within their ZIP codes, which may contribute to disparities in access to breast cancer care experienced by underserved groups living in these areas.

Local recurrence after breast-conserving surgery: multivariable analysis of risk factors and the impact of young age.

BACKGROUND: Local recurrence (LR) after breast conservation surgery (BCS) varies with risk factors. This study was designed to evaluate the impact of young age on LR. METHODS: All patients (excluding those who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy) who underwent BCS from 1988-2001 at our institution were identified and evaluated for risk factors of LR. RESULTS: A total of 3,064 patients underwent 3,131 BCS. Mean age at surgery was 61 (range, 21-98) years: 175 (5.6%) patients were aged<40 years; 492 (15.7%) were 40-49 years; 761 (24.3%) were 50-59 years; 801 (25.6%) were 60-69 years; and 902 (28.8%) were age 70+years. A total of 212 patients (6.8%) developed LR at a mean of 4.5 (range, 0.1-14.4) years after BCS. Mean follow-up was 8.9 (range, 0-20.2) years. The 5-year LR-free survival rate was 94.9%. The frequencies of LR by age group were: <40 years--11.4%; 40-49 years--5.7%; 50-59 years--6.2%; 60-69 years--7.6%; 70 years and older--6.2%. The 5-year LR-free survival rates for these age groups were 90.5%, 95.4%, 95.5%, 95.4%, and 94.7%, respectively (P=0.09, log-rank test). On univariable analysis, patients aged<40 years were nearly twice as likely to experience LR (hazards ratio (HR), 1.81; P=0.012). Multivariable analysis of patients with complete data (n=2,122) demonstrated that age<40 years and node positivity were associated with increased risk of LR, whereas ER positivity and radiation therapy were associated with decreased risk. CONCLUSIONS: Risk factors for LR after BCS include age<40 years, node positivity, ER negativity, and absence of adjuvant radiation therapy. Patients younger than age 40 years are at increased risk of LR after BCS.

Breast Cancer Screening in Women With Dense Breasts: Current Status and Future Directions for Appropriate Risk Stratification and Imaging Utilization.

Breast density continues to be a prevailing topic in the field of breast imaging, with continued complexities contributing to overall confusion and controversy among patients and the medical community. In this article, we explore the current status of breast cancer screening in women with dense breasts including breast density legislation. Risk-based approaches to supplemental screening may be more financially cost-effective. While all advanced imaging modalities detect additional primarily invasive, node-negative cancers, the degree to which this occurs can vary by density category. Future directions include expanding the use of density-inclusive risk models with appropriate risk stratification and imaging utilization. Further research is needed, however, to better understand how to optimize population-based screening programs with knowledge of patients' individualized risk, including breast density assessment, to improve the benefit-to-harm ratio of breast cancer screening.