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 2005-2017 in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, paired with screening MRIs within +/- 90 days (combined screening) or 91-270 days (alternating screening). Performance for combined screening [cancer detection rate (CDR) per 1000 examinations and sensitivity] was calculated with one-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 one-year follow-up for each modality and also with follow-up ending at the next screen if within one year (truncated follow-up). RESULTS: For 3,810 combined screening pairs, CDR per 1000 screens was 6.8 (95%CI: 4.6-10.0) for mammography and 12.3 (95%CI: 9.3-16.4) for MRI as separate tests compared to 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 to 96.2% (95%CI: 85.9-99.0%) for combined screening. For 4,450 alternating screening pairs, mammography CDR per 1000 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 1000 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.

Disentangling the relationships of body mass index and circulating sex hormone concentrations in mammographic density using Mendelian randomization.

PURPOSE: Mammographic density phenotypes, adjusted for age and body mass index (BMI), are strong predictors of breast cancer risk. BMI is associated with mammographic density measures, but the role of circulating sex hormone concentrations is less clear. We investigated the relationship between BMI, circulating sex hormone concentrations, and mammographic density phenotypes using Mendelian randomization (MR). METHODS: We applied two-sample MR approaches to assess the association between genetically predicted circulating concentrations of sex hormones [estradiol, testosterone, sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG)], BMI, and mammographic density phenotypes (dense and non-dense area). We created instrumental variables from large European ancestry-based genome-wide association studies and applied estimates to mammographic density phenotypes in up to 14,000 women of European ancestry. We performed analyses overall and by menopausal status. RESULTS: Genetically predicted BMI was positively associated with non-dense area (IVW: ß = 1.79; 95% CI = 1.58, 2.00; p = 9.57 × 10-63) and inversely associated with dense area (IVW: ß = - 0.37; 95% CI = - 0.51,- 0.23; p = 4.7 × 10-7). We observed weak evidence for an association of circulating sex hormone concentrations with mammographic density phenotypes, specifically inverse associations between genetically predicted testosterone concentration and dense area (ß = - 0.22; 95% CI = - 0.38, - 0.053; p = 0.009) and between genetically predicted estradiol concentration and non-dense area (ß = - 3.32; 95% CI = - 5.83, - 0.82; p = 0.009), although results were not consistent across a range of MR approaches. CONCLUSION: Our findings support a positive causal association between BMI and mammographic non-dense area and an inverse association between BMI and dense area. Evidence was weaker and inconsistent for a causal effect of circulating sex hormone concentrations on mammographic density phenotypes. Based on our findings, associations between circulating sex hormone concentrations and mammographic density phenotypes are weak at best.

Breast density knowledge and willingness to delay treatment for pre-operative breast cancer imaging among women with a personal history of breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Following a breast cancer diagnosis, it is uncertain whether women's breast density knowledge influences their willingness to undergo pre-operative imaging to detect additional cancer in their breasts. We evaluated women's breast density knowledge and their willingness to delay treatment for pre-operative testing. METHODS: We surveyed women identified in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium aged ≥ 18 years, with first breast cancer diagnosed within the prior 6-18 months, who had at least one breast density measurement within the 5 years prior to their diagnosis. We assessed women's breast density knowledge and correlates of willingness to delay treatment for 6 or more weeks for pre-operative imaging via logistic regression. RESULTS: Survey participation was 28.3% (969/3,430). Seventy-two percent (469/647) of women with dense and 11% (34/322) with non-dense breasts correctly knew their density (p < 0.001); 69% (665/969) of all women knew dense breasts make it harder to detect cancers on a mammogram; and 29% (285/969) were willing to delay treatment ≥ 6 weeks to undergo pre-operative imaging. Willingness to delay treatment did not differ by self-reported density (OR:0.99 for non-dense vs. dense; 95%CI: 0.50-1.96). Treatment with chemotherapy was associated with less willingness to delay treatment (OR:0.67; 95%CI: 0.46-0.96). Having previously delayed breast cancer treatment more than 3 months was associated with an increased willingness to delay treatment for pre-operative imaging (OR:2.18; 95%CI: 1.26-3.77). CONCLUSIONS: Understanding of personal breast density was not associated with willingness to delay treatment 6 or more weeks for pre-operative imaging, but aspects of a woman's treatment experience were. CLINICALTRIALS: GOV : NCT02980848 registered December 2, 2016.

Emergency Department Use in Adolescent and Young Adult Cancer Early Survivors from 2006 to 2020.

Purpose: Understanding emergency department (ED) use in adolescent and young adult (AYA) survivors could identify gaps in AYA survivorship. Methods: We conducted a cohort study of 7925 AYA survivors (aged 15-39 years at diagnosis) who were 2-5 years from diagnosis in 2006-2020 at Kaiser Permanente Southern California. We calculated ED utilization rates overall and by indication of the encounter (headache, cardiac issues, and suicide attempts). We estimated rate changes by survivorship year and patient factors associated with ED visit using a Poisson model. Results: Cohort was 65.4% women, 45.8% Hispanic, with mean age at diagnosis at 31.3 years. Overall, 38% of AYA survivors had ≥1 ED visit (95th percentile: 5 ED visits). Unadjusted ED rates declined from 374.2/1000 person-years (PY) in Y2 to 327.2 in Y5 (p change < 0.001). Unadjusted rates declined for headache, cardiac issues, and suicide attempts. Factors associated with increased ED use included: age 20-24 at diagnosis [relative risk (RR) = 1.30, 95% CI 1.09-1.56 vs. 35-39 years]; female (RR = 1.27, 95% CI 1.11-1.47 vs. male); non-Hispanic Black race/ethnicity (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.38-1.95 vs. non-Hispanic white); comorbidity (RR = 1.34, 95% CI 1.16-1.55 for 1 and RR 1.80, 95% CI 1.40-2.30 for 2+ vs. none); and public insurance (RR = 1.99, 95% CI 1.70-2.32 vs. private). Compared with thyroid cancer, cancers associated with increased ED use were breast (RR = 1.45, 95% CI 1.24-1.70), cervical (RR = 2.18, 95% CI 1.76-2.71), colorectal (RR = 2.34, 95% CI 1.94-2.81), and sarcoma (RR = 1.39, 95% CI 1.03-1.88). Conclusion: ED utilization declined as time from diagnosis elapsed, but higher utilization was associated with social determinants of health and cancer types.

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.

Young Women's Perspectives on Being Screened for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Risk During Routine Primary Care.

PURPOSE: The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends screening women to identify individuals eligible for genetic counseling based on a priori hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOC) risk (i.e., risk assessment). However, risk assessment has not been widely integrated into primary care. This qualitative study explored young women's views on implementing routine HBOC risk assessment with a focus on equity and patient-centeredness. METHODS: We conducted group discussions with young women (aged 21-40 years) receiving care in an integrated health care system. Discussion groups occurred in two phases and used a modified deliberative approach that included a didactic component and prioritized developing consensus. Twenty women participated in one of three initial small group discussions (phase one). All 20 were invited to participate in a subsequent large group discussion (phase two), and 15 of them attended. FINDINGS: Key themes and recommendations were as follows. Risk assessment should be accessible, contextualized, and destigmatized to encourage participation and reduce anxiety, particularly for women who do not know their family history. Providers conducting risk assessments must be equipped to address women's informational needs, relieve emotionality, and plan next steps after positive screens. Finally, to minimize differential screening uptake, health care systems must prioritize equity in program design and contribute to external educational and outreach efforts. CONCLUSION: Young women see pragmatic opportunities for health systems to optimize HBOC screening implementation.

A pragmatic randomized clinical trial of multilevel interventions to improve adherence to lung cancer screening (The Larch Study): Study protocol.

BACKGROUND: In real-world settings, low adherence to lung cancer screening (LCS) diminishes population-level benefits of reducing lung cancer mortality. We describe the Larch Study protocol, which tests the effectiveness of two patient-centered interventions (Patient Voices Video and Stepped Reminders) designed to address barriers and improve annual LCS adherence. METHODS: The Larch Study is a pragmatic randomized clinical trial conducted within Kaiser Permanente Washington. Eligible patients (target n = 1606) are aged 50-78 years with an index low-dose CT (LDCT) of the chest with negative or benign findings. With a 2 × 2 factorial-design, patients are individually randomized to 1 of 4 arms: video only, reminders only, both video and reminders, or usual care. The Patient Voices video addresses patient education needs by normalizing LCS, reminding patients when LCS is due, and encouraging social support. Stepped Reminders prompts primary care physicians to order patient's repeat screening LDCT and patients to schedule their scan. Intervention delivery is embedded within routine healthcare, facilitated by shared electronic health record components. Primary outcome is adherence to national LCS clinical guidelines, defined as repeat LDCT within 9-15 months. Patient-reported outcomes are measured via survey (knowledge of LCS, perception of stigma) approximately 8 weeks after index LDCT. Our mixed-methods formative evaluation includes process data, collected during the trial, and interviews with trial participants and stakeholders. DISCUSSION: Results will fill an important scientific gap on multilevel interventions to increase annual LCS adherence and provide opportunities for spread and scale to other healthcare settings. REGISTRATION: Trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (#NCT05747443).

Late venous thromboembolism in survivors of adolescent and young adult cancer: A population-based study in California.

INTRODUCTION: Venous thromboembolism (VTE), a common complication in cancer patients, occurs more often during the initial phase of treatment. However, information on VTE beyond the first two years after diagnosis ('late VTE') is scarce, particularly in young survivors. METHODS: We examined the risk of, and factors associated with, late VTE among adolescents and young adults (AYA, 15-39 years) diagnosed with cancer (2006-2018) who survived ≥2 years. Data were obtained from the California Cancer Registry linked to hospitalization, emergency department and ambulatory surgery data. We used non-parametric models and Cox proportional hazard regression for analyses. RESULTS: Among 59,343 survivors, the 10-year cumulative incidence of VTE was 1.93 % (CI 1.80-2.07). The hazard of VTE was higher among those who had active cancer, including progression from lower stages to metastatic disease (Hazard Ratio (HR) = 10.41, 95 % confidence interval (CI): 8.86-12.22), second primary cancer (HR = 2.58, CI:2.01-3.31), or metastatic disease at diagnosis (HR = 2.38, CI:1.84-3.09). The hazard of late VTE was increased among survivors who underwent hematopoietic cell transplantation, those who received radiotherapy, had a VTE history, public insurance (vs private) or non-Hispanic Black/African American race/ethnicity (vs non-Hispanic White). Patients with leukemias, lymphomas, sarcoma, melanoma, colorectal, breast, and cervical cancers had a higher VTE risk than those with thyroid cancer. CONCLUSIONS: VTE risk remained elevated ≥2 years following cancer diagnosis in AYA survivors. Active cancer is a significant risk factor for VTE. Future studies might determine if late VTE should prompt evaluation for recurrence or second malignancy, if not already known.

Unpacking the relationship between shared decision-making and decisional quality, decision to screen, and screening completion in lung cancer screening.

OBJECTIVES: Lung cancer screening is a complex and individualized decision. To understand how best to support patients in this decision, we must understand how shared decision-making is associated with both decisional and behavioral outcomes. METHODS: Observational cohort study combining patient survey data with electronic health record data of lung screening-eligible patients who recently engaged in a shared decision-making discussion about screening with a primary care clinician. RESULTS: Using multivariable analysis (n = 529), factors associated with higher lung cancer screening decisional quality include higher knowledge (OR = 1.33, p < .0001), lower perceived benefits (OR = 0.90, p = .0004), higher perceived barriers (OR = 1.07, p < .0001), higher self-efficacy (OR = 1.13, p < .0001), and higher levels of perceiving the discussion was shared (OR = 1.04, p < .0001). Factors associated with the patient's decision to screen include older age (OR = 1.12, p = .0050) and higher self-efficacy (OR = 1.11, p = .0407). Factors associated with screening completion included older age (OR = 1.05, p = .0050), higher knowledge (OR = 1.24, p = .0045), and higher self-efficacy (OR = 1.12, p = .0003). CONCLUSIONS: Shared decision-making in lung cancer screening is a dyadic process between patient and clinician. As we continue to strive for high-quality patient-centered care, patient decision quality may be enhanced by targeting key factors such as high-quality knowledge, self-efficacy, and fostering a shared discussion to support patient engagement in lung cancer screening decisions.

Challenges and Opportunities of Epidemiological Studies to Reduce the Burden of Cancers in Young Adults.

There are >1.9 million survivors of adolescent and young adult cancers (AYA, diagnosed at ages 15-39) living in the U.S. today. Epidemiologic studies to address the cancer burden in this group have been a relatively recent focus of the research community. In this article, we discuss approaches and data resources for cancer epidemiology and health services research in the AYA population. We consider research that uses data from cancer registries, vital records, healthcare utilization, and surveys, and the accompanying challenges and opportunities of each. To illustrate the strengths of each data source, we present example research questions or areas that are aligned with these data sources and salient to AYAs. Integrating the respective strengths of cancer registry, vital records, healthcare data, and survey-based studies sets the foundation for innovative and impactful research on AYA cancer treatment and survivorship to inform a comprehensive understanding of diverse AYA needs and experiences.

Incidence and Survival for Patients Diagnosed With Breast, Colorectal, and Lung Cancer in an Integrated System.

INTRODUCTION: Documenting trends in cancer incidence and survival is a national priority. This study estimated age- and sex-adjusted incidence and 5-year relative survival among patients with cancer diagnosed within Kaiser Permanente compared to Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) estimates. METHODS: The cohort included Kaiser Permanente health plan members diagnosed with breast (BC), colorectal (CRC), or lung cancer (LC) between January 1, 1999 and December 31, 2018. Incidence was computed as age-adjusted rates per 100,000 member-years. SEER*Stat was used to compute 5-year relative survival. RESULTS: Kaiser Permanente BC incidence rates were persistently higher than SEER from 2004 (126.5 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 123.2-129.9] vs 122.6 [95% CI = 121.3-123.2]) through 2013 (132.06 [95% CI = 129.5-135.7] vs 126.7 [95% CI = 125.9-127.5]). Kaiser Permanente CRC and LC incidence rates were lower than SEER for all years except 2008, showing a spike in CRC incidence (51.5 [95% CI = 49.9-53.0] vs 46.1 [95% CI = 45.7-46.4]). Kaiser Permanente BC, CRC, and LC survival estimates for all stages were higher than SEER. CONCLUSIONS: Incidence rates for all-stage and localized-stage BC were consistently higher for Kaiser Permanente than for SEER. CRC and LC rates were lower. Kaiser Permanente survival rates were consistently higher than for SEER. The strengths of these findings are associated with the ability to capture "gold-standard" cancer registry data on defined Kaiser Permanente populations. However, findings should be interpreted cautiously given differences in the underlying populations and secular and regional differences between Kaiser Permanente and SEER. The Kaiser Permanente population is younger and more racially diverse than SEER aggregate populations, and Kaiser Permanente members are insured with access to preventive care (eg, smoking cessation programs, cancer screening).

Longitudinal adherence to breast cancer surveillance following cancer genetic testing in an integrated health care system.

PURPOSE: Screening with mammography and breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is an important risk management strategy for individuals with inherited pathogenic variants (PVs) in genes associated with increased breast cancer risk. We describe longitudinal screening adherence in individuals who underwent cancer genetic testing as part of usual care in a vertically integrated health system. METHODS: We determined the proportion time covered (PTC) by annual mammography and breast MRI for individuals with PVs in TP53, BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, NF1, CHEK2, and ATM. We determined time covered by biennial mammography beginning at age 50 years for individuals who received negative results, uncertain results, or with PVs in genes without specific breast cancer screening recommendations. RESULTS: One hundred and forty individuals had PVs in TP53, BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, NF1, CHEK2, or ATM. Among these individuals, average PTC was 48% (range 0-99%) for annual screening mammography and 34% (range 0-100%) for annual breast MRI. Average PTC was highest for individuals with PVs in CHEK2 (N = 14) and lowest for individuals with PVs in TP53 (N = 3). Average PTC for biennial mammography (N = 1,027) was 49% (0-100%). CONCLUSION: Longitudinal screening adherence in individuals with PVs in breast cancer associated genes, as measured by the proportion of time covered, is low; adherence to annual breast MRI falls below that of annual mammography. Additional research should examine screening behavior in individuals with PVs in breast cancer associated genes with a goal of developing interventions to improve adherence to recommended risk management.

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.

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.

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.

Using Protection Motivation Theory to Predict Intentions for Breast Cancer Risk Management: Intervention Mechanisms from a Randomized Controlled Trial.

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the direct and indirect effects of a web-based, Protection Motivation Theory (PMT)-informed breast cancer education and decision support tool on intentions for risk-reducing medication and breast MRI among high-risk women. Women with ≥ 1.67% 5-year breast cancer risk (N = 995) were randomized to (1) control or (2) the PMT-informed intervention. Six weeks post-intervention, 924 (93% retention) self-reported PMT constructs and behavioral intentions. Bootstrapped mediations evaluated the direct effect of the intervention on behavioral intentions and the mediating role of PMT constructs. There was no direct intervention effect on intentions for risk-reducing medication or MRI (p's ≥ 0.12). There were significant indirect effects on risk-reducing medication intentions via perceived risk, self-efficacy, and response efficacy, and on MRI intentions via perceived risk and response efficacy (p's ≤ 0.04). The PMT-informed intervention effected behavioral intentions via perceived breast cancer risk, self-efficacy, and response efficacy. Future research should extend these findings from intentions to behavior. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03029286 (date of registration: January 24, 2017).

Prioritizing Screening Mammograms for Immediate Interpretation and Diagnostic Evaluation on the Basis of Risk for Recall.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to develop a prioritization strategy for scheduling immediate screening mammographic interpretation and possible diagnostic evaluation. METHODS: A population-based cohort with screening mammograms performed from 2012 to 2020 at 126 radiology facilities from 7 Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium registries was identified. Classification trees identified combinations of clinical history (age, BI-RADS® density, time since prior mammogram, history of false-positive recall or biopsy result), screening modality (digital mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis), and facility characteristics (profit status, location, screening volume, practice type, academic affiliation) that grouped screening mammograms by recall rate, with ≥12/100 considered high and ≥16/100 very high. An efficiency ratio was estimated as the percentage of recalls divided by the percentage of mammograms. RESULTS: The study cohort included 2,674,051 screening mammograms in 925,777 women, with 235,569 recalls. The most important predictor of recall was time since prior mammogram, followed by age, history of false-positive recall, breast density, history of benign biopsy, and screening modality. Recall rates were very high for baseline mammograms (21.3/100; 95% confidence interval, 19.7-23.0) and high for women with ≥5 years since prior mammogram (15.1/100; 95% confidence interval, 14.3-16.1). The 9.2% of mammograms in subgroups with very high and high recall rates accounted for 19.2% of recalls, an efficiency ratio of 2.1 compared with a random approach. Adding women <50 years of age with dense breasts accounted for 20.3% of mammograms and 33.9% of recalls (efficiency ratio = 1.7). Results including facility-level characteristics were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Prioritizing women with baseline mammograms or ≥5 years since prior mammogram for immediate interpretation and possible diagnostic evaluation could considerably reduce the number of women needing to return for diagnostic imaging at another visit.

Reassessing the Benefits and Harms of Risk-Reducing Medication Considering the Persistent Risk of Breast Cancer Mortality in Estrogen Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: Recent studies, including a meta-analysis of 88 trials, have shown higher than expected rates of recurrence and death in hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. These new findings suggest a need to re-evaluate the use of risk-reducing medication to avoid invasive breast cancer and breast cancer death in high-risk women. METHODS: We adapted an established Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network model to evaluate the lifetime benefits and harms of risk-reducing medication in women with a ≥ 3% 5-year risk of developing breast cancer according to the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium risk calculator. Model input parameters were derived from meta-analyses, clinical trials, and large observational data. We evaluated the effects of 5 years of risk-reducing medication (tamoxifen/aromatase inhibitors) with annual screening mammography ± magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) compared with no screening, MRI, or risk-reducing medication. The modeled outcomes included invasive breast cancer, breast cancer death, side effects, false positives, and overdiagnosis. We conducted subgroup analyses for individual risk factors such as age, family history, and prior biopsy. RESULTS: Risk-reducing tamoxifen with annual screening (± MRI) decreased the risk of invasive breast cancer by 40% and breast cancer death by 57%, compared with no tamoxifen or screening. This is equivalent to an absolute reduction of 95 invasive breast cancers, and 42 breast cancer deaths per 1,000 high-risk women. However, these drugs are associated with side effects. For example, tamoxifen could increase the number of endometrial cancers up to 11 per 1,000 high-risk women. Benefits and harms varied by individual characteristics. CONCLUSION: The addition of risk-reducing medication to screening could further decrease the risk of breast cancer death. Clinical guidelines for high-risk women should consider integrating shared decision making for risk-reducing medication and screening on the basis of individual risk factors.

Women's Breast Cancer Screening Confidence by Screening Modality and Breast Density: A Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium Survey Study.

Objective: Little is known about women's confidence in their breast cancer screening. We sought to characterize breast cancer screening confidence by imaging modality and clinically assessed breast density. Materials and Methods: We undertook a cross-sectional survey of women ages 40-74 years who received digital mammography (DM), digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), and/or breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with a normal screening exam in the prior year. The main outcome was women's confidence (Very, Somewhat, A little, Not at all) in their breast cancer screening detecting any cancer. Multivariable logistic regression identified correlates of being very confident in breast cancer screening by screening modality group: Group 1) DM vs. DBT and Group 2) DM or DBT alone vs. with supplemental MRI. Results: Overall, 2329 of 7439 (31.3%) invitees participated, with 30%-61% being very confident in their screening across modality and density subgroups. Having dense versus nondense breasts was associated with lower odds of being very confident (Group 1: odds ratio [OR]: 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.46-0.79; Group 2: OR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.40-0.79). There were no differences by modality within Group 1, but for Group 2, women undergoing MRI had higher odds of being very confident (OR: 1.69; 95% CI: 1.21-2.37). Other correlates of greater screening confidence were as follows: Group 1-being offered a screening test choice and cost not influencing modality received, and Group 2-decision satisfaction and worry. Conclusions: Women with dense breasts had lower screening confidence regardless of screening modality and those undergoing MRI had higher confidence regardless of density. The importance of informing women about screening options is underscored by observed associations between screening choice, decision satisfaction, and screening confidence. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02980848.