Prioritizing breast imaging services during the COVID pandemic: A survey of breast imaging facilities within the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.

The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted breast cancer screening and diagnostic imaging in the United States. We sought to evaluate how medical facilities prioritized breast imaging services during periods of reduced capacity or upon re-opening after closures. In fall 2020, we surveyed 77 breast imaging facilities within the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium in the United States. The survey ascertained the pandemic's impact on clinical practices during March-September 2020. Nearly all facilities (97%) reported closing or operating at reduced capacity at some point during this period. All facilities were open by August 2020, though 14% were still operating at reduced capacity in September 2020. During periods of re-opening or reduced capacity, 93% of facilities reported prioritizing diagnostic breast imaging over breast cancer screening. For diagnostic imaging, facilities prioritized based on rescheduling canceled appointments (89%), specific indication for diagnostic imaging (89%), patient demand (84%), individual characteristics and risk factors (77%), and time since last imaging examination (72%). For screening mammography, facilities prioritized based on rescheduled cancelations (96%), patient demand (83%), individual characteristics and risk factors (73%), and time since last mammogram (71%). For biopsy services, more than 90% of facilities reported prioritization based on rescheduling of canceled exams, patient demand, patient characteristics and risk factors and level of suspicion on imaging. The observed patterns from this large and geographically diverse sample of facilities in the United States indicate that multiple factors were commonly used to prioritize breast imaging services during periods of reduced capacity.

Trends in Attaining Mammography Quality Benchmarks With Repeated Participation in a Quality Measurement Program: Going Beyond the Mammography Quality Standards Act to Address Breast Cancer Disparities.

PURPOSE: The Mammography Quality Standards Act requires that mammography facilities conduct audits, but there are no specifications on the metrics to be measured. In a previous mammography quality improvement project, the authors examined whether breast cancer screening facilities could collect the data necessary to show that they met certain quality benchmarks. Here the authors present trends from the first 5 years of data collection to examine whether continued participation in this quality improvement program was associated with an increase in the number of benchmarks met for breast cancer screening. METHODS: Participating facilities across the state of Illinois (n = 114) with at least two time points of data collected (2006, 2009, 2010, 2011, and/or 2013) were included. Facilities provided aggregate data on screening mammographic examinations and corresponding diagnostic follow-up information, which was used to estimate 13 measures and corresponding benchmarks for patient tracking, callback, cancer detection, loss to follow-up, and timeliness of care. RESULTS: The number of facilities able to show that they met specific benchmarks increased with length of participation for many but not all measures. Trends toward meeting more benchmarks were apparent for cancer detection, timely imaging, not lost at biopsy, known minimal status (P < .01 for all), and proportion of screening-detected cancers that were minimal and early stage (P < .001 for both). CONCLUSIONS: Participation in the quality improvement program seemed to lead to improvements in patient tracking, callback and detection, and timeliness benchmarks.

Absence of an anticipated racial disparity in interval breast cancer within a large health care organization.

PURPOSE: Compared to non-Latina (nL) white women, nL black women are diagnosed with more aggressive breast cancers, which in turn should be more likely to go undetected on screening mammography and subsequently arise as interval breast cancer (IBC). We sought to estimate the extent of an anticipated racial disparity in IBC within a single, large health care organization. METHODS: The present analysis focuses on 4357 breast cancers diagnosed between 2001 and 2012 and within 18 months of a screening mammogram (N = 714,218). We used logistic regression with model-based standardization (predictive margins) to estimate adjusted prevalence differences corresponding to a racial disparity in IBC. RESULTS: Overall, prevalence of IBC within 18 months was 20.7%. Contrary to expectation, in patient-adjusted models, there was no IBC racial disparity (percentage point disparity = -2.1, 95% confidence interval: -4.7, 2.6). However, when controlling for facility characteristics, including proportion of nL black patients, the model coefficient for the IBC disparity reversed sign and changed substantially (P < .0001) and a racial disparity emerged (percentage point disparity = +5.1, 95% confidence interval: -0.3, 9.9). CONCLUSIONS: The sorting of patients by race across facilities appears to have mitigated an otherwise anticipated disparity in IBC. Possible explanations are discussed.