Variation in second breast cancer risk after primary invasive cancer by time since primary cancer diagnosis and estrogen receptor status.

BACKGROUND: In women with previously treated breast cancer, occurrence and timing of second breast cancers have implications for surveillance. The authors examined the timing of second breast cancers by primary cancer estrogen receptor (ER) status in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. METHODS: Women who were diagnosed with American Joint Commission on Cancer stage I-III breast cancer were identified within six Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium registries from 2000 to 2017. Characteristics collected at primary breast cancer diagnosis included demographics, ER status, and treatment. Second breast cancer events included subsequent ipsilateral or contralateral breast cancers diagnosed >6 months after primary diagnosis. The authors examined cumulative incidence and second breast cancer rates by primary cancer ER status during 1-5 versus 6-10 years after diagnosis. RESULTS: At 10 years, the cumulative second breast cancer incidence was 11.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 10.7%-13.1%) for women with ER-negative disease and 7.5% (95% CI, 7.0%-8.0%) for those with ER-positive disease. Women with ER-negative cancer had higher second breast cancer rates than those with ER-positive cancer during the first 5 years of follow-up (16.0 per 1000 person-years [PY]; 95% CI, 14.2-17.9 per 1000 PY; vs. 7.8 per 1000 PY; 95% CI, 7.3-8.4 per 1000 PY, respectively). After 5 years, second breast cancer rates were similar for women with ER-negative versus ER-positive breast cancer (12.1 per 1000 PY; 95% CI, 9.9-14.7; vs. 9.3 per 1000 PY; 95% CI, 8.4-10.3 per 1000 PY, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: ER-negative primary breast cancers are associated with a higher risk of second breast cancers than ER-positive cancers during the first 5 years after diagnosis. Further study is needed to examine the potential benefit of more intensive surveillance targeting these women in the early postdiagnosis period.

Breast cancer risk characteristics of women undergoing whole-breast ultrasound screening versus mammography alone.

BACKGROUND: There are no consensus guidelines for supplemental breast cancer screening with whole-breast ultrasound. However, criteria for women at high risk of mammography screening failures (interval invasive cancer or advanced cancer) have been identified. Mammography screening failure risk was evaluated among women undergoing supplemental ultrasound screening in clinical practice compared with women undergoing mammography alone. METHODS: A total of 38,166 screening ultrasounds and 825,360 screening mammograms without supplemental screening were identified during 2014-2020 within three Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) registries. Risk of interval invasive cancer and advanced cancer were determined using BCSC prediction models. High interval invasive breast cancer risk was defined as heterogeneously dense breasts and BCSC 5-year breast cancer risk ≥2.5% or extremely dense breasts and BCSC 5-year breast cancer risk ≥1.67%. Intermediate/high advanced cancer risk was defined as BCSC 6-year advanced breast cancer risk ≥0.38%. RESULTS: A total of 95.3% of 38,166 ultrasounds were among women with heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts, compared with 41.8% of 825,360 screening mammograms without supplemental screening (p < .0001). Among women with dense breasts, high interval invasive breast cancer risk was prevalent in 23.7% of screening ultrasounds compared with 18.5% of screening mammograms without supplemental imaging (adjusted odds ratio, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.30-1.39); intermediate/high advanced cancer risk was prevalent in 32.0% of screening ultrasounds versus 30.5% of screening mammograms without supplemental screening (adjusted odds ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.89-0.94). CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasound screening was highly targeted to women with dense breasts, but only a modest proportion were at high mammography screening failure risk. A clinically significant proportion of women undergoing mammography screening alone were at high mammography screening failure risk.

Intrauterine device-related uterine perforation incidence and risk (APEX-IUD): a large multisite cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Reports of perforation risk related to intrauterine devices (IUDs) inserted immediately post partum and among non-post-partum individuals are scarce, and previous studies with only 12-month follow-ups underestimate the risk. Breastfeeding at IUD insertion and insertion within 36 weeks post partum have been associated with increased risk of uterine perforation. The aim of these analyses was to compare the incidence and risks of IUD-related uterine perforations by non-post-partum and post-partum intervals at IUD insertion, and among post-partum individuals, to assess the impact of breastfeeding on these outcomes. METHODS: We did a multisite cohort study in the USA, using electronic health records (EHR). Study sites were three health-care systems and a site that used data from a health-care information exchange. The study population included individuals who were aged 50 years or younger and had an IUD insertion between Jan 1, 2001, and April 30, 2018. Individuals were excluded if they had not been in the health-care system for at least 12 months before IUD insertion. The primary outcome for this analysis was any IUD-related uterine perforation diagnosis for the first IUD insertion in this time period. Both complete and partial IUD-related perforations were identified. Chart abstraction was done to validate EHR-based algorithms or confirm perforations. The crude rate and cumulative incidence of uterine perforation were evaluated by non-post-partum and post-partum intervals at IUD insertion in the full cohort, and by breastfeeding status in a subcohort of post-partum individuals. Cox models estimated crude and adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs). FINDINGS: Data from 326 658 individuals in the full cohort and 94 817 individuals in the post-partum subcohort were analysed. In the full cohort, we identified 1008 uterine perforations (51·2% complete), with the 5-year cumulative incidence being the lowest in the non-post-partum group (0·29%, 95% CI 0·26-0·34). The aHR for the post-partum interval relative to non-post partum ranged from 2·73 (95% CI 1·33-5·63; 0 to 3 days post partum) to 6·71 (4·80-9·38; 4 days to ≤6 weeks post partum). The post-partum subcohort of individuals with breastfeeding information had 673 uterine perforations (62% complete), with a 5-year cumulative incidence of 1·37% (95% CI 1·24-1·52) and an increased risk with breastfeeding (aHR 1·37, 95% CI 1·12-1·66). INTERPRETATION: Although the risk for uterine perforation with IUD insertion 4 days to 6 weeks or less post partum is nearly seven times that of insertion non-post partum, perforation remains an incredibly rare event for all clinical time points. Despite a slight increased risk of perforation with breastfeeding at IUD insertion, the benefits of breastfeeding and effective contraception generally outweigh risks and should have little clinical impact. Therefore, IUD insertion timing should be based on individual desire for IUD contraception and patient convenience to assure an IUD insertion can occur. Careful follow-up of individuals at higher risk of uterine perforation is warranted. FUNDING: Bayer AG.

Association between menorrhagia and risk of intrauterine device-related uterine perforation and device expulsion: results from the Association of Uterine Perforation and Expulsion of Intrauterine Device study.

BACKGROUND: Intrauterine devices are effective instruments for contraception, and 1 levonorgestrel-releasing device is also indicated for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding (menorrhagia). OBJECTIVE: To compare the incidence of intrauterine device expulsion and uterine perforation in women with and without a diagnosis of menorrhagia within the first 12 months before device insertion STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study conducted in 3 integrated healthcare systems (Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Southern California, and Washington) and a healthcare information exchange (Regenstrief Institute) in the United States using electronic health records. Nonpostpartum women aged ≤50 years with intrauterine device (eg, levonorgestrel or copper) insertions from 2001 to 2018 and without a delivery in the previous 12 months were studied in this analysis. Recent menorrhagia diagnosis (ie, recorded ≤12 months before insertion) was ascertained from the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth and Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification codes. The study outcomes, viz, device expulsion and device-related uterine perforation (complete or partial), were ascertained from electronic medical records and validated in the data sources. The cumulative incidence and crude incidence rates with 95% confidence intervals were estimated. Cox proportional hazards models estimated the crude and adjusted hazard ratios using propensity score overlap weighting (13-16 variables) and 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Among 228,834 nonpostpartum women, the mean age was 33.1 years, 44.4% of them were White, and 31,600 (13.8%) had a recent menorrhagia diagnosis. Most women had a levonorgestrel-releasing device (96.4% of those with and 78.2% of those without a menorrhagia diagnosis). Women with a menorrhagia diagnosis were likely to be older, obese, and have dysmenorrhea or fibroids. Women with a menorrhagia diagnosis had a higher intrauterine device-expulsion rate (40.01 vs 10.92 per 1000 person-years) than those without, especially evident in the first few months after insertion. Women with a menorrhagia diagnosis had a higher cumulative incidence (95% confidence interval) of expulsion (7.00% [6.70-7.32] at 1 year and 12.03% [11.52-12.55] at 5 years) vs those without (1.77% [1.70-1.84] at 1 year and 3.69% [3.56-3.83] at 5 years). The risk of expulsion was increased for women with a menorrhagia diagnosis vs for those without (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.84 [95% confidence interval, 2.66-3.03]). The perforation rate was low overall (<1/1000 person-years) but higher in women with a diagnosis of menorrhagia vs in those without (0.98 vs 0.63 per 1000 person-years). The cumulative incidence (95% confidence interval) of uterine perforation was slightly higher for women with a menorrhagia diagnosis (0.09% [0.06-0.14] at 1 year and 0.39% [0.29-0.53] at 5 years) than those without it (0.07% [0.06-0.08] at 1 year and 0.28% [0.24-0.33] at 5 years). The risk of perforation was slightly increased in women with a menorrhagia diagnosis vs in those without (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-2.13). CONCLUSION: The risk of expulsion is significantly higher in women with a recent diagnosis of menorrhagia. Patient education and counseling regarding the potential expulsion risk is recommended at insertion. The absolute risk of perforation for women with a recent diagnosis of menorrhagia is very low. The increased expulsion and perforation rates observed are likely because of causal factors of menorrhagia.

Association between intrauterine device type and risk of perforation and device expulsion: results from the Association of Perforation and Expulsion of Intrauterine Device study.

BACKGROUND: Intrauterine devices, including levonorgestrel-releasing and copper devices, are highly effective long-acting reversible contraceptives. The potential risks associated with intrauterine devices are low and include uterine perforation and device expulsion. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the risk of perforation and expulsion associated with levonorgestrel-releasing devices vs copper devices in clinical practice in the United States. STUDY DESIGN: The Association of Perforation and Expulsion of Intrauterine Device study was a retrospective cohort study of women aged ≤50 years with an intrauterine device insertion during 2001 to 2018 and information on intrauterine device type and patient and medical characteristics. Of note, 4 research sites with access to electronic health records contributed data for the study: 3 Kaiser Permanente-integrated healthcare systems (Northern California, Southern California, and Washington) and 1 healthcare system using data from a healthcare information exchange in Indiana (Regenstrief Institute). Perforation was classified as any extension of the device into or through the myometrium. Expulsion was classified as complete (not visible in the uterus or abdomen or patient reported) or partial (any portion in the cervix or malpositioned). We estimated the crude incidence rates and crude cumulative incidence by intrauterine device type. The risks of perforation and expulsion associated with levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices vs copper intrauterine devices were estimated using Cox proportional-hazards regression with propensity score overlap weighting to adjust for confounders. RESULTS: Among 322,898 women included in this analysis, the incidence rates of perforation per 1000 person-years were 1.64 (95% confidence interval, 1.53-1.76) for levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices and 1.27 (95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.48) for copper intrauterine devices; 1-year and 5-year crude cumulative incidence was 0.22% (95% confidence interval, 0.20-0.24) and 0.63% (95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.68) for levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices and 0.16% (95% confidence interval, 0.13-0.20) and 0.55% (95% confidence interval, 0.44-0.68) for copper intrauterine devices, respectively. The incidence rates of expulsion per 1000 person-years were 13.95 (95% confidence interval, 13.63-14.28) for levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices and 14.08 (95% confidence interval, 13.44-14.75) for copper intrauterine devices; 1-year and 5-year crude cumulative incidence was 2.30% (95% confidence interval, 2.24-2.36) and 4.52% (95% confidence interval, 4.40-4.65) for levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices and 2.30% (95% confidence interval, 2.18-2.44) and 4.82 (95% confidence interval, 4.56-5.10) for copper intrauterine devices, respectively. Comparing levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices with copper intrauterine devices, the adjusted hazard ratios were 1.49 (95% confidence intervals, 1.25-1.78) for perforation and 0.69 (95% confidence intervals, 0.65-0.73) for expulsion. CONCLUSION: After adjusting for potential confounders, levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices were associated with an increased risk of uterine perforation and a decreased risk of expulsion relative to copper intrauterine devices. Given that the absolute numbers of these events are low in both groups, these differences may not be clinically meaningful.

Validation of international classification of diseases, tenth revision, clinical modification diagnosis codes for heart failure subtypes.

PURPOSE: To estimate the positive predictive value (PPV) of International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) diagnosis codes for identifying HF subtypes. METHODS: We validated ICD-10-CM HF diagnosis codes among Kaiser Permanente Washington enrollees who were ≥18 years of age and had an ICD-10-CM HF diagnosis code during 2017-2018 and a procedure code for an echocardiogram in the 12 months before through 6 months after the HF code. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ascertained from medical chart review was used as the gold standard for classifying patients as having reduced ejection fraction (rEF), mid-range ejection fraction (mEF), or preserved ejection fraction (pEF). RESULTS: Among 6194 eligible patients, we randomly sampled 1000 for medical chart review. A total of 974 patients had LVEF information in their chart. The ICD-10-CM HF code group with the highest PPV for rEF was I50.20-I50.23, "Systolic (congestive) heart failure," PPV = 41.4% (95% CI, 34.5-48.7%); and the highest PPV for mEF or rEF was also I50.20-I50.23, PPV = 70.2% (95% CI, 63.1-76.4%). The highest PPV for pEF was the I50.30-I50.33 group, "Diastolic (congestive) heart failure," PPV = 92.0% (95% CI, 88.1-94.7%); and the highest PPV for mEF or pEF was also I50.30-I50.33, PPV = 97.7% (95% CI, 95.1-99.0%). CONCLUSIONS: If the accuracy measure of greatest interest is PPV, our results suggest that ICD-10-CM HF codes alone may not be adequate for identifying patients with rEF but may be adequate for identifying patients with pEF. HF coding practices may vary across settings, which may impact generalizability of our findings.

Digital Mammography and Breast Tomosynthesis Performance in Women with a Personal History of Breast Cancer, 2007-2016.

Background Since 2007, digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) replaced screen-film mammography. Whether these technologic advances have improved diagnostic performance has, to the knowledge of the authors, not yet been established. Purpose To evaluate the performance and outcomes of surveillance mammography (digital mammography and DBT) performed from 2007 to 2016 in women with a personal history of breast cancer and compare with data from 1996 to 2007 and the performance of digital mammography screening benchmarks. Materials and Methods In this observational cohort study, five Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium registries provided prospectively collected mammography data linked with tumor registry and pathologic outcomes. This study identified asymptomatic women with American Joint Committee on Cancer anatomic stages 0-III primary breast cancer who underwent surveillance mammography from 2007 to 2016. The primary outcome was a second breast cancer diagnosis within 1 year of mammography. Performance measures included the recall rate, cancer detection rate, interval cancer rate, positive predictive value of biopsy recommendation, sensitivity, and specificity. Results Among 32 331 women who underwent 117 971 surveillance mammographic examinations (112 269 digital mammographic examinations and 5702 DBT examinations), the mean age at initial diagnosis was 59 years ± 12 (standard deviation). Of 1418 second breast cancers diagnosed, 998 were surveillance-detected cancers and 420 were interval cancers. The recall rate was 8.8% (10 365 of 117 971; 95% CI: 8.6%, 9.0%), the cancer detection rate was 8.5 per 1000 examinations (998 of 117 971; 95% CI: 8.0, 9.0), the interval cancer rate was 3.6 per 1000 examinations (420 of 117 971; 95% CI: 3.2, 3.9), the positive predictive value of biopsy recommendation was 31.0% (998 of 3220; 95% CI: 29.4%, 32.7%), the sensitivity was 70.4% (998 of 1418; 95% CI: 67.9%, 72.7%), and the specificity was 98.1% (114 331 of 116 553; 95% CI: 98.0%, 98.2%). Compared with previously published studies, interval cancer rate was comparable with rates from 1996 to 2007 in women with a personal history of breast cancer and was higher than the published digital mammography screening benchmarks. Conclusion In transitioning from screen-film to digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis, surveillance mammography performance demonstrated minimal improvement over time and remained inferior to the performance of screening mammography benchmarks. © RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Moy and Gao in this issue.

Design of the Association of Uterine Perforation and Expulsion of Intrauterine Device study: a multisite retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Intrauterine devices are effective and safe, long-acting reversible contraceptives, but the risk of uterine perforation occurs with an estimated incidence of 1 to 2 per 1000 insertions. The European Active Surveillance Study for Intrauterine Devices, a European prospective observational study that enrolled 61,448 participants (2006-2012), found that women breastfeeding at the time of device insertion or with the device inserted at ≤36 weeks after delivery had a higher risk of uterine perforation. The Association of Uterine Perforation and Expulsion of Intrauterine Device (APEX-IUD) study was a Food and Drug Administration-mandated study designed to reflect current United States clinical practice. The aims of the APEX-IUD study were to evaluate the risk of intrauterine device-related uterine perforation and device expulsion among women who were breastfeeding or within 12 months after delivery at insertion. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to describe the APEX-IUD study design, methodology, and analytical plan and present population characteristics, size of risk factor groups, and duration of follow-up. STUDY DESIGN: APEX-IUD study was a retrospective cohort study conducted in 4 organizations with access to electronic health records: Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Kaiser Permanente Washington, and Regenstrief Institute in Indiana. Variables were identified through structured data (eg, diagnostic, procedural, medication codes) and unstructured data (eg, clinical notes) via natural language processing. Outcomes include uterine perforation and device expulsion; potential risk factors were breastfeeding at insertion, postpartum timing of insertion, device type, and menorrhagia diagnosis in the year before insertion. Covariates include demographic characteristics, clinical characteristics, and procedure-related variables, such as difficult insertion. The first potential date of inclusion for eligible women varies by research site (from January 1, 2001 to January 1, 2010). Follow-up begins at insertion and ends at first occurrence of an outcome of interest, a censoring event (device removal or reinsertion, pregnancy, hysterectomy, sterilization, device expiration, death, disenrollment, last clinical encounter), or end of the study period (June 30, 2018). Comparisons of levels of exposure variables were made using Cox regression models with confounding adjusted by propensity score weighting using overlap weights. RESULTS: The study population includes 326,658 women with at least 1 device insertion during the study period (Kaiser Permanente Northern California, 161,442; Kaiser Permanente Southern California, 123,214; Kaiser Permanente Washington, 20,526; Regenstrief Institute, 21,476). The median duration of continuous enrollment was 90 (site medians 74-177) months. The mean age was 32 years, and the population was racially and ethnically diverse across the 4 sites. The mean body mass index was 28.5 kg/m2, and of the women included in the study, 10.0% had menorrhagia ≤12 months before insertion, 5.3% had uterine fibroids, and 10% were recent smokers; furthermore, among these women, 79.4% had levonorgestrel-releasing devices, and 19.5% had copper devices. Across sites, 97,824 women had an intrauterine device insertion at ≤52 weeks after delivery, of which 94,817 women (97%) had breastfeeding status at insertion determined; in addition, 228,834 women had intrauterine device insertion at >52 weeks after delivery or no evidence of a delivery in their health record. CONCLUSION: Combining retrospective data from multiple sites allowed for a large and diverse study population. Collaboration with clinicians in the study design and validation of outcomes ensured that the APEX-IUD study results reflect current United States clinical practice. Results from this study will provide valuable information based on real-world evidence about risk factors for intrauterine devices perforation and expulsion for clinicians.

Primary Care Opioid Taper Plans Are Associated with Sustained Opioid Dose Reduction.

BACKGROUND: Primary care providers prescribe most long-term opioid therapy and are increasingly asked to taper the opioid doses of these patients to safer levels. A recent systematic review suggests that multiple interventions may facilitate opioid taper, but many of these are not feasible within the usual primary care practice. OBJECTIVE: To determine if opioid taper plans documented by primary care providers in the electronic health record are associated with significant and sustained opioid dose reductions among patients on long-term opioid therapy. DESIGN: A nested case-control design was used to compare cases (patients with a sustained opioid taper defined as average daily opioid dose of ≤ 30 mg morphine equivalent (MME) or a 50% reduction in MME) to controls (patients matched to cases on year and quarter of cohort entry, sex, and age group, who had not achieved a sustained taper). Each case was matched with four controls. PARTICIPANTS: Two thousand four hundred nine patients receiving a ≥ 60-day supply of opioids with an average daily dose of ≥ 50 MME during 2011-2015. MAIN MEASURES: Opioid taper plans documented in prescription instructions or clinical notes within the electronic health record identified through natural language processing; opioid dosing, patient characteristics, and taper plan components also abstracted from the electronic health record. KEY RESULTS: Primary care taper plans were associated with an increased likelihood of sustained opioid taper after adjusting for all patient covariates and near peak dose (OR = 3.63 [95% CI 2.96-4.46], p < 0.0001). Both taper plans in prescription instructions (OR = 4.03 [95% CI 3.19-5.09], p < 0.0001) and in clinical notes (OR = 2.82 [95% CI 2.00-3.99], p < 0.0001) were associated with sustained taper. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that planning for opioid taper during primary care visits may facilitate significant and sustained opioid dose reduction.

Surveillance Breast MRI and Mammography: Comparison in Women with a Personal History of Breast Cancer.

Background There is lack of consensus regarding the use of breast MRI for routine surveillance for second breast cancer events in women with a personal history of breast cancer. Purpose To compare performance of surveillance mammography with breast MRI. Materials and Methods This observational cohort study used prospectively collected data and included 13 266 women age 18 years and older (mean age, 60 years ± 13) with stage 0-III breast cancer who underwent 33 938 mammographic examinations and 2506 breast MRI examinations from 2005 to 2012 in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Women were categorized into two groups: mammography alone (n = 11 745) or breast MRI (n = 1521). Performance measures were calculated by using end-of-day assessment and occurrence of second breast cancer events within 1 year of imaging. Logistic regression was used to compare performance for breast MRI versus mammography alone, adjusting for women, examination, and primary breast cancer characteristics. Analysis was conducted on a per-examination basis. Results Breast MRI was associated with younger age at diagnosis, chemotherapy, and higher education and income. Raw performance measures for breast MRI versus mammography were as follows, respectively: cancer detection rates, 10.8 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.7, 14.8) versus 8.2 (95% CI: 7.3, 9.2) per 1000 examinations; sensitivity, 61.4% (27 of 44; 95% CI: 46.5%, 76.2%) versus 70.3% (279 of 397; 95% CI: 65.8%, 74.8%); and biopsy rate, 10.1% (253 of 2506; 95% CI: 8.9%, 11.3%) versus 4.0% (1343 of 33 938; 95% CI: 3.7%, 4.2%). In multivariable models, breast MRI was associated with higher biopsy rate (odds ratio [OR], 2.2; 95% CI: 1.9, 2.7; P < .001) and cancer detection rate (OR, 1.7; 95% CI: 1.1, 2.7; P = .03) than mammography alone. However, there were no differences in sensitivity (OR, 1.1; 95% CI: 0.4, 2.9; P = .84) or interval cancer rate (OR, 1.1; 95% CI: 0.6, 2.2; P = .70). Conclusion Comparison of the performance of surveillance breast MRI with mammography must account for patient characteristics. Whereas breast MRI leads to higher biopsy and cancer detection rates, there were no significant differences in sensitivity or interval cancers compared with mammography. © RSNA, 2019 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Newell in this issue.

Patterns of Breast Imaging Use Among Women with a Personal History of Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: National patterns of breast imaging in women with a personal history of breast cancer (PHBC) are unknown making evaluation of annual surveillance recommendations a challenge. OBJECTIVE: To describe variation in use of mammography and breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations beginning 6 months after diagnosis among women with PHBC in US community practice. We report on the breast imaging indication, imaging intervals, and time since breast cancer diagnosis by examination type. DESIGN: Longitudinal study using cross-sectional data. SETTING: Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium breast imaging facilities. PARTICIPANTS: 19,955 women diagnosed between 2005 and 2012 with AJCC stage 0-III incident breast cancer who had 69,386 mammograms and 3,553 breast MRI examinations from January 2005 to September 2013; median follow-up of 37.6 months (interquartile range, 22.1-60.7). MAIN MEASURES: Breast imaging indication, imaging intervals, and time since breast cancer diagnosis by examination type. KEY RESULTS: Among women with a PHBC who received breast imaging, 89.4% underwent mammography alone, 0.8% MRI alone, and 10.3% had both mammography and MRI. About half of mammograms and MRIs were indicated for surveillance vs. diagnostic, with an increase in the proportion of surveillance exams as time from diagnosis increased (mammograms, 45.7% at 1 year to 72.2% after 5 years; MRIs, 54.8% at 1 year to 78.6% after 5 years). In the first post-diagnosis period, 32.8% of women had > 2 breast imaging examinations and of these, 65.8% were less than 6 months apart. During the first 5-year post-diagnosis, the frequency of examinations per year decreased and the interval between examinations shifted towards annual examinations. CONCLUSION: In women with a PHBC who received post-diagnosis imaging, a third underwent multiple breast imaging examinations per year during the first 2-year post-diagnosis despite recommendations for annual exams. As time since diagnosis increases, imaging indication shifts from diagnostic to surveillance.

Performance Benchmarks for Screening Breast MR Imaging in Community Practice.

Purpose To compare screening magnetic resonance (MR) imaging performance in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) with Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) benchmarks. Materials and Methods This study was approved by the institutional review board and compliant with HIPAA and included BCSC screening MR examinations collected between 2005 and 2013 from 5343 women (8387 MR examinations) linked to regional Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program registries, state tumor registries, and pathologic information databases that identified breast cancer cases and tumor characteristics. Clinical, demographic, and imaging characteristics were assessed. Performance measures were calculated according to BI-RADS fifth edition and included cancer detection rate (CDR), positive predictive value of biopsy recommendation (PPV2), sensitivity, and specificity. Results The median patient age was 52 years; 52% of MR examinations were performed in women with a first-degree family history of breast cancer, 46% in women with a personal history of breast cancer, and 15% in women with both risk factors. Screening MR imaging depicted 146 cancers, and 35 interval cancers were identified (181 total-54 in situ, 125 invasive, and two status unknown). The CDR was 17 per 1000 screening examinations (95% confidence interval [CI]: 15, 20 per 1000 screening examinations; BI-RADS benchmark, 20-30 per 1000 screening examinations). PPV2 was 19% (95% CI: 16%, 22%; benchmark, 15%). Sensitivity was 81% (95% CI: 75%, 86%; benchmark, >80%), and specificity was 83% (95% CI: 82%, 84%; benchmark, 85%-90%). The median tumor size of invasive cancers was 10 mm; 88% were node negative. Conclusion The interpretative performance of screening MR imaging in the BCSC meets most BI-RADS benchmarks and approaches benchmark levels for remaining measures. Clinical practice performance data can inform ongoing benchmark development and help identify areas for quality improvement. © RSNA, 2017.

Concordance of BI-RADS Assessments and Management Recommendations for Breast MRI in Community Practice.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate concordance between BI-RADS assessments and management recommendations for breast MRI in community practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Breast MRI data were collected from four regional Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium registries from 2005 to 2011 for women who were 18-79 years old. Assessments and recommendations were compared to determine concordance according to BI-RADS guidelines. Concordance was compared by assessment category as well as by year of examination and clinical indication. RESULTS: In all, 8283 MRI examinations were included in the analysis. Concordance was highest (93% [2475/2657]) in examinations with a BI-RADS category 2 (benign) assessment. Concordance was also high in examinations with category 1 (negative) (87% [1669/1909]), category 0 (incomplete) (83% [348/417]), category 5 (highly suggestive of malignancy) (83% [208/252]), and category 4 (suspicious) (74% [734/993]) assessments. Examinations with categories 3 (probably benign) and 6 (known biopsy-proven malignancy) assessments had the lowest concordance rates (36% [302/837] and 56% [676/1218], respectively). The most frequent discordant recommendation for a category 3 assessment was routine follow-up. The most frequent discordant recommendation for a category 6 assessment was biopsy. Concordance of assessments and management recommendations differed across clinical indications (p < 0.0001), with the lowest concordance in examinations to assess disease extent. CONCLUSION: Breast MRI BI-RADS management recommendations were most concordant for assessments of negative, incomplete, suspicious, and highly suggestive of malignancy. Lower concordance for assessments of probably benign and known biopsy-proven malignancy and for examinations performed to assess disease extent highlight areas for interventions to improve breast MRI reporting.

Trends in breast biopsy pathology diagnoses among women undergoing mammography in the United States: a report from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Current data on the pathologic diagnoses of breast biopsy after mammography can inform patients, clinicians, and researchers about important population trends. METHODS: Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium data on 4,020,140 mammograms between 1996 and 2008 were linked to 76,567 pathology specimens. Trends in diagnoses in biopsies by time and risk factors (patient age, breast density, and family history of breast cancer) were examined for screening and diagnostic mammography (performed for a breast symptom or short-interval follow-up). RESULTS: Of the total mammograms, 88.5% were screening and 11.5% diagnostic; 1.2% of screening and 6.8% of diagnostic mammograms were followed by biopsies. The frequency of biopsies over time was stable after screening mammograms, but increased after diagnostic mammograms. For biopsies obtained after screening, frequencies of invasive carcinoma increased over time for women ages 40-49 and 60-69, Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) increased for those ages 40-69, whereas benign diagnoses decreased for all ages. No trends in pathology diagnoses were found following diagnostic mammograms. Dense breast tissue was associated with high-risk lesions and DCIS relative to nondense breast tissue. Family history of breast cancer was associated with DCIS and invasive cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Although the frequency of breast biopsy after screening mammography has not changed over time, the percentages of biopsies with DCIS and invasive cancer diagnoses have increased. Among biopsies following mammography, women with dense breasts or family history of breast cancer were more likely to have high-risk lesions or invasive cancer. These findings are relevant to breast cancer screening and diagnostic practices.

Criteria for identifying radiologists with acceptable screening mammography interpretive performance on basis of multiple performance measures.

OBJECTIVE: Using a combination of performance measures, we updated previously proposed criteria for identifying physicians whose performance interpreting screening mammography may indicate suboptimal interpretation skills. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this study, six expert breast imagers used a method based on the Angoff approach to update criteria for acceptable mammography performance on the basis of two sets of combined performance measures: set 1, sensitivity and specificity for facilities with complete capture of false-negative cancers; and set 2, cancer detection rate (CDR), recall rate, and positive predictive value of a recall (PPV1) for facilities that cannot capture false-negative cancers but have reliable cancer follow-up information for positive mammography results. Decisions were informed by normative data from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC). RESULTS: Updated combined ranges for acceptable sensitivity and specificity of screening mammography are sensitivity≥80% and specificity≥85% or sensitivity 75-79% and specificity 88-97%. Updated ranges for CDR, recall rate, and PPV1 are: CDR≥6 per 1000, recall rate 3-20%, and any PPV1; CDR 4-6 per 1000, recall rate 3-15%, and PPV1≥3%; or CDR 2.5-4.0 per 1000, recall rate 5-12%, and PPV1 3-8%. Using the original criteria, 51% of BCSC radiologists had acceptable sensitivity and specificity; 40% had acceptable CDR, recall rate, and PPV1. Using the combined criteria, 69% had acceptable sensitivity and specificity and 62% had acceptable CDR, recall rate, and PPV1. CONCLUSION: The combined criteria improve previous criteria by considering the interrelationships of multiple performance measures and broaden the acceptable performance ranges compared with previous criteria based on individual measures.

SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Related Hospitalization among Cancer Survivors.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 severity among a growing population of cancer survivors. We describe the association of infection and related hospitalization by recency of cancer diagnosis in a large U.S. cohort. METHODS: Participants were sent electronic surveys between April 2020 and January 2021 to collect information on SARS-CoV-2 infection and potential COVID-19-related risk factors. SARS-CoV-2 infections were identified using survey report of a COVID-19-positive test and electronic health record data. Cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection was estimated up to 365 days from baseline survey and stratified by recency of cancer diagnosis. Among those with SARS-CoV-2 infection, we used logistic regression to estimate the association between recency of cancer diagnosis and hospitalization within 30 days of infection. RESULTS: Cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection at 365 days was 3.3% [95% confidence interval (CI), 3.2%-3.5%] among those without cancer history and ranged from 2.8% (95% CI, 2.3%-3.5%) to 3.7% (95% CI, 2.9%-4.7%) among those with a history of cancer depending on recency. There was no statistically significant difference in odds of hospitalization within 30 days following SARS-CoV-2 infection by cancer diagnosis recency. CONCLUSIONS: Our null findings are consistent with other studies on COVID-19 infection risk in cancer survivors, where COVID-19 severity and sequelae were independent of cancer history and were likely associated with factors such as intensive care unit admission, noncancer comorbid conditions, and long-term care residency. IMPACT: This study can inform COVID-19 risk-counseling of cancer survivors and their caregivers as we continue to contend with COVID-19.

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.

Diagnostic mammography: identifying minimally acceptable interpretive performance criteria.

PURPOSE: To develop criteria to identify thresholds for the minimally acceptable performance of physicians interpreting diagnostic mammography studies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In an institutional review board-approved HIPAA-compliant study, an Angoff approach was used to set criteria for identifying minimally acceptable interpretive performance for both workup after abnormal screening examinations and workup of a breast lump. Normative data from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) was used to help the expert radiologist identify the impact of cut points. Simulations, also using data from the BCSC, were used to estimate the expected clinical impact from the recommended performance thresholds. RESULTS: Final cut points for workup of abnormal screening examinations were as follows: sensitivity, less than 80%; specificity, less than 80% or greater than 95%; abnormal interpretation rate, less than 8% or greater than 25%; positive predictive value (PPV) of biopsy recommendation (PPV2), less than 15% or greater than 40%; PPV of biopsy performed (PPV3), less than 20% or greater than 45%; and cancer diagnosis rate, less than 20 per 1000 interpretations. Final cut points for workup of a breast lump were as follows: sensitivity, less than 85%; specificity, less than 83% or greater than 95%; abnormal interpretation rate, less than 10% or greater than 25%; PPV2, less than 25% or greater than 50%; PPV3, less than 30% or greater than 55%; and cancer diagnosis rate, less than 40 per 1000 interpretations. If underperforming physicians moved into the acceptable range after remedial training, the expected result would be (a) diagnosis of an additional 86 cancers per 100,000 women undergoing workup after screening examinations, with a reduction in the number of false-positive examinations by 1067 per 100,000 women undergoing this workup, and (b) diagnosis of an additional 335 cancers per 100,000 women undergoing workup of a breast lump, with a reduction in the number of false-positive examinations by 634 per 100,000 women undergoing this workup. CONCLUSION: Interpreting physicians who fall outside one or more of the identified cut points should be reviewed in the context of an overall assessment of all their performance measures and their specific practice setting to determine if remedial training is indicated.

Performance of Statistical and Machine Learning Risk Prediction Models for Surveillance Benefits and Failures in Breast Cancer Survivors.

BACKGROUND: Machine learning (ML) approaches facilitate risk prediction model development using high-dimensional predictors and higher-order interactions at the cost of model interpretability and transparency. We compared the relative predictive performance of statistical and ML models to guide modeling strategy selection for surveillance mammography outcomes in women with a personal history of breast cancer (PHBC). METHODS: We cross-validated seven risk prediction models for two surveillance outcomes, failure (breast cancer within 12 months of a negative surveillance mammogram) and benefit (surveillance-detected breast cancer). We included 9,447 mammograms (495 failures, 1,414 benefits, and 7,538 nonevents) from years 1996 to 2017 using a 1:4 matched case-control samples of women with PHBC in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. We assessed model performance of conventional regression, regularized regressions (LASSO and elastic-net), and ML methods (random forests and gradient boosting machines) by evaluating their calibration and, among well-calibrated models, comparing the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: LASSO and elastic-net consistently provided well-calibrated predicted risks for surveillance failure and benefit. The AUCs of LASSO and elastic-net were both 0.63 (95% CI, 0.60-0.66) for surveillance failure and 0.66 (95% CI, 0.64-0.68) for surveillance benefit, the highest among well-calibrated models. CONCLUSIONS: For predicting breast cancer surveillance mammography outcomes, regularized regression outperformed other modeling approaches and balanced the trade-off between model flexibility and interpretability. IMPACT: Regularized regression may be preferred for developing risk prediction models in other contexts with rare outcomes, similar training sample sizes, and low-dimensional features.

Impact of Surveillance Mammography Intervals Less Than One Year on Performance Measures in Women With a Personal History of Breast Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: When multiple surveillance mammograms are performed within an annual interval, the current guidance for one-year follow-up to determine breast cancer status results in shared follow-up periods in which a single breast cancer diagnosis can be attributed to multiple preceding examinations, posing a challenge for standardized performance assessment. We assessed the impact of using follow-up periods that eliminate the artifactual inflation of second breast cancer diagnoses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated surveillance mammograms from 2007-2016 in women with treated breast cancer linked with tumor registry and pathology outcomes. Second breast cancers included ductal carcinoma in situ or invasive breast cancer diagnosed during one-year follow-up. The cancer detection rate, interval cancer rate, sensitivity, and specificity were compared using different follow-up periods: standard one-year follow-up per the American College of Radiology versus follow-up that was shortened at the next surveillance mammogram if less than one year (truncated follow-up). Performance measures were calculated overall and by indication (screening, evaluation for breast problem, and short interval follow-up). RESULTS: Of 117971 surveillance mammograms, 20% (n = 23533) were followed by another surveillance mammogram within one year. Standard follow-up identified 1597 mammograms that were associated with second breast cancers. With truncated follow-up, the breast cancer status of 179 mammograms (11.2%) was revised, resulting in 1418 mammograms associated with unique second breast cancers. The interval cancer rate decreased with truncated versus standard follow-up (3.6 versus 4.9 per 1000 mammograms, respectively), with a difference (95% confidence interval [CI]) of -1.3 (-1.6, -1.1). The overall sensitivity increased to 70.4% from 63.7%, for the truncated versus standard follow-up, with a difference (95% CI) of 6.6% (5.6%, 7.7%). The specificity remained stable at 98.1%. CONCLUSION: Truncated follow-up, if less than one year to the next surveillance mammogram, enabled second breast cancers to be associated with a single preceding mammogram and resulted in more accurate estimates of diagnostic performance for national benchmarks.