Performance of Supplemental US Screening in Women with Dense Breasts and Varying Breast Cancer Risk: Results from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.

Background It is unclear whether breast US screening outcomes for women with dense breasts vary with levels of breast cancer risk. Purpose To evaluate US screening outcomes for female patients with dense breasts and different estimated breast cancer risk levels. Materials and Methods This retrospective observational study used data from US screening examinations in female patients with heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts conducted from January 2014 to October 2020 at 24 radiology facilities within three Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) registries. The primary outcomes were the cancer detection rate, false-positive biopsy recommendation rate, and positive predictive value of biopsies performed (PPV3). Risk classification of participants was performed using established BCSC risk prediction models of estimated 6-year advanced breast cancer risk and 5-year invasive breast cancer risk. Differences in high- versus low- or average-risk categories were assessed using a generalized linear model. Results In total, 34 791 US screening examinations from 26 489 female patients (mean age at screening, 53.9 years ± 9.0 [SD]) were included. The overall cancer detection rate per 1000 examinations was 2.0 (95% CI: 1.6, 2.4) and was higher in patients with high versus low or average risk of 6-year advanced breast cancer (5.5 [95% CI: 3.5, 8.6] vs 1.3 [95% CI: 1.0, 1.8], respectively; P = .003). The overall false-positive biopsy recommendation rate per 1000 examinations was 29.6 (95% CI: 22.6, 38.6) and was higher in patients with high versus low or average 6-year advanced breast cancer risk (37.0 [95% CI: 28.2, 48.4] vs 28.1 [95% CI: 20.9, 37.8], respectively; P = .04). The overall PPV3 was 6.9% (67 of 975; 95% CI: 5.3, 8.9) and was higher in patients with high versus low or average 6-year advanced cancer risk (15.0% [15 of 100; 95% CI: 9.9, 22.2] vs 4.9% [30 of 615; 95% CI: 3.3, 7.2]; P = .01). Similar patterns in outcomes were observed by 5-year invasive breast cancer risk. Conclusion The cancer detection rate and PPV3 of supplemental US screening increased with the estimated risk of advanced and invasive breast cancer. © RSNA, 2024 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Helbich and Kapetas in this issue.

Relative Timing of Mammography and MRI for Breast Cancer Screening: Impact on Performance Evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: Mammography and MRI screening typically occur in combination or in alternating sequence. We compared multimodality screening performance accounting for the relative timing of mammography and MRI and overlapping follow-up periods. METHODS: We identified 8,260 screening mammograms performed 2005 to 2017 in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, paired with screening MRIs within ±90 days (combined screening) or 91 to 270 days (alternating screening). Performance for combined screening (cancer detection rate [CDR] per 1,000 examinations and sensitivity) was calculated with 1-year follow-up for each modality, and with a single follow-up period treating the two tests as a single test. Alternating screening performance was calculated with 1-year follow-up for each modality and also with follow-up ending at the next screen if within 1 year (truncated follow-up). RESULTS: For 3,810 combined screening pairs, CDR per 1,000 screens was 6.8 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.6-10.0) for mammography and 12.3 (95% CI: 9.3-16.4) for MRI as separate tests compared with 13.1 (95% CI: 10.0-17.3) as a single combined test. Sensitivity of each test was 48.1% (35.0%-61.5%) for mammography and 79.7% (95% CI: 67.7%-88.0%) for MRI compared with 96.2% (95% CI: 85.9%-99.0%) for combined screening. For 4,450 alternating screening pairs, mammography CDR per 1,000 screens changed from 3.6 (95% CI: 2.2-5.9) to zero with truncated follow-up; sensitivity was incalculable (denominator = 0). MRI CDR per 1,000 screens changed from 12.1 (95% CI 9.3-15.8) to 11.7 (95% CI: 8.9-15.3) with truncated follow-up; sensitivity changed from 75.0% (95% CI 63.8%-83.6%) to 86.7% (95% CI 75.5%-93.2%). DISCUSSION: Updating auditing approaches to account for combined and alternating screening sequencing and to address outcome attribution issues arising from overlapping follow-up periods can improve the accuracy of multimodality screening performance evaluation.

Establishing a Validation Infrastructure for Imaging-Based Artificial Intelligence Algorithms Before Clinical Implementation.

With promising artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms receiving FDA clearance, the potential impact of these models on clinical outcomes must be evaluated locally before their integration into routine workflows. Robust validation infrastructures are pivotal to inspecting the accuracy and generalizability of these deep learning algorithms to ensure both patient safety and health equity. Protected health information concerns, intellectual property rights, and diverse requirements of models impede the development of rigorous external validation infrastructures. The authors propose various suggestions for addressing the challenges associated with the development of efficient, customizable, and cost-effective infrastructures for the external validation of AI models at large medical centers and institutions. The authors present comprehensive steps to establish an AI inferencing infrastructure outside clinical systems to examine the local performance of AI algorithms before health practice or systemwide implementation and promote an evidence-based approach for adopting AI models that can enhance radiology workflows and improve patient outcomes.

Artificial Intelligence for Breast Cancer Risk Assessment.

Breast cancer risk prediction models based on common clinical risk factors are used to identify women eligible for high-risk screening and prevention. Unfortunately, these models have only modest discriminatory accuracy with disparities in performance in underrepresented race and ethnicity groups. The field of artificial intelligence (AI) and deep learning are rapidly advancing the field of breast cancer risk prediction with the development of mammography-based AI breast cancer risk models. Early studies suggest mammography-based AI risk models may perform better than traditional risk factor-based models with more equitable performance.

Collaborative Modeling to Compare Different Breast Cancer Screening Strategies: A Decision Analysis for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: The effects of breast cancer incidence changes and advances in screening and treatment on outcomes of different screening strategies are not well known. Objective: To estimate outcomes of various mammography screening strategies. Design, Setting, and Population: Comparison of outcomes using 6 Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) models and national data on breast cancer incidence, mammography performance, treatment effects, and other-cause mortality in US women without previous cancer diagnoses. Exposures: Thirty-six screening strategies with varying start ages (40, 45, 50 years) and stop ages (74, 79 years) with digital mammography or digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) annually, biennially, or a combination of intervals. Strategies were evaluated for all women and for Black women, assuming 100% screening adherence and "real-world" treatment. Main Outcomes and Measures: Estimated lifetime benefits (breast cancer deaths averted, percent reduction in breast cancer mortality, life-years gained), harms (false-positive recalls, benign biopsies, overdiagnosis), and number of mammograms per 1000 women. Results: Biennial screening with DBT starting at age 40, 45, or 50 years until age 74 years averted a median of 8.2, 7.5, or 6.7 breast cancer deaths per 1000 women screened, respectively, vs no screening. Biennial DBT screening at age 40 to 74 years (vs no screening) was associated with a 30.0% breast cancer mortality reduction, 1376 false-positive recalls, and 14 overdiagnosed cases per 1000 women screened. Digital mammography screening benefits were similar to those for DBT but had more false-positive recalls. Annual screening increased benefits but resulted in more false-positive recalls and overdiagnosed cases. Benefit-to-harm ratios of continuing screening until age 79 years were similar or superior to stopping at age 74. In all strategies, women with higher-than-average breast cancer risk, higher breast density, and lower comorbidity level experienced greater screening benefits than other groups. Annual screening of Black women from age 40 to 49 years with biennial screening thereafter reduced breast cancer mortality disparities while maintaining similar benefit-to-harm trade-offs as for all women. Conclusions: This modeling analysis suggests that biennial mammography screening starting at age 40 years reduces breast cancer mortality and increases life-years gained per mammogram. More intensive screening for women with greater risk of breast cancer diagnosis or death can maintain similar benefit-to-harm trade-offs and reduce mortality disparities.

Predicting five-year interval second breast cancer risk in women with prior breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Annual surveillance mammography is recommended for women with a personal history of breast cancer. Risk prediction models that estimate mammography failures such as interval second breast cancers could help to tailor surveillance imaging regimens to women's individual risk profiles. METHODS: In a cohort of women with a history of breast cancer receiving surveillance mammography in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium in 1996-2019, we used Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO)-penalized regression to estimate the probability of an interval second cancer (invasive cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ) in the 1 year after a negative surveillance mammogram. Based on predicted risks from this one-year risk model, we generated cumulative risks of an interval second cancer for the five-year period after each mammogram. Model performance was evaluated using cross-validation in the overall cohort and within race and ethnicity strata. RESULTS: In 173 290 surveillance mammograms, we observed 496 interval cancers. One-year risk models were well-calibrated (expected/observed ratio = 1.00) with good accuracy (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.64). Model performance was similar across race and ethnicity groups. The median five-year cumulative risk was 1.20% (interquartile range 0.93%-1.63%). Median five-year risks were highest in women who were under age 40 or pre- or perimenopausal at diagnosis and those with estrogen receptor-negative primary breast cancers. CONCLUSIONS: Our risk model identified women at high risk of interval second breast cancers who may benefit from additional surveillance imaging modalities. Risk models should be evaluated to determine if risk-guided supplemental surveillance imaging improves early detection and decreases surveillance failures.