Breast Cancer Risk Perceptions Among Underserved, Hispanic Women: Implications for Risk-Based Approaches to Screening.

BACKGROUND: Understanding factors that shape breast cancer risk perceptions is essential for implementing risk-based approaches to breast cancer detection and prevention. This study aimed to assess multilevel factors, including prior screening behavior, shaping underserved, Hispanic women's perceived risk for breast cancer. METHODS: Secondary analysis of survey data from Hispanic women (N = 1325, 92% Spanish speaking, 64% < 50) enrolled in a large randomized controlled trial. Analyses were performed in two cohorts to account for the role of age on screening guideline recommendations (< 50 and 50 +). For each cohort, we examined differences in three common measures of perceived risk of breast cancer (percent lifetime, ordinal lifetime, comparative) by participant factors with chi-square or Kruskal-Wallis tests, as appropriate. Multivariate analyses examined the association between mammography history with percent perceived lifetime risk (outcome > 10 vs ≤ 10%). RESULTS: Overall, 75% reported a lifetime risk between 0 and 10%, 96% rated their ordinal risk as "not high," and 50% rated their comparative risk as "much lower." Women < 50 with a family history of breast cancer reported significantly higher levels of perceived risk across all three measures. Among women 50 + , those reporting lower levels of perceived risk were significantly more likely to be Spanish speaking. No significant association was observed between mammography history and percent lifetime risk of breast cancer. CONCLUSION: Factors shaping breast cancer risk perceptions differ by age. Prior screening may play less of role in constructing risk perceptions. Research is needed to develop culturally and linguistically appropriate strategies to improve implementation of risk-based screening.

Breast Cancer Method of Detection: 5-Year Outcomes Across a Multisite Health Care Enterprise.

PURPOSE: To investigate the feasibility and accuracy of radiologists categorizing the method of detection (MOD) when performing image-guided breast biopsies. METHODS: This retrospective, observational study was conducted across a health care enterprise that provides breast imaging services at 18 imaging sites across four US states. Radiologists used standardized templates to categorize the MOD, defined as the first test, sign, or symptom that triggered the subsequent workup and recommendation for biopsy. All image-guided breast biopsies since the implementation of the MOD-inclusive standardized template-from October 31, 2017 to July 6, 2023-were extracted. A random sample of biopsy reports was manually reviewed to evaluate the accuracy of MOD categorization. RESULTS: A total of 29,999 biopsies were analyzed. MOD was reported in 29,423 biopsies (98.1%) at a sustained rate that improved over time. The 10 MOD categories in this study included the following: 15,184 mammograms (51.6%); 4,561 MRIs (15.5%); 3,473 ultrasounds (11.8%); 2,382 self-examinations (8.1%); 2,073 tomosynthesis studies (7.0%); 432 clinical examinations (1.5%); 421 molecular breast imaging studies (1.4%); 357 other studies (1.2%); 338 contrast-enhanced digital mammograms (1.1%); and 202 PET studies (0.7%). Original assignments of the MOD agreed with author assignments in 87% of manually reviewed biopsies (n = 100, 95% confidence interval: [80.4%, 93.6%]). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that US radiologists can consistently and accurately categorize the MOD over an extended time across a health care enterprise.

False-Positive and False-Negative Contrast-enhanced Mammograms: Pitfalls and Strategies to Improve Cancer Detection.

Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is a relatively new breast imaging modality that uses intravenous contrast material to increase detection of breast cancer. CEM combines the structural information of conventional mammography with the functional information of tumor neovascularity. Initial studies have demonstrated that CEM and MRI perform with similar accuracies, with CEM having a slightly higher specificity (fewer false positives), although larger studies are needed. There are various reasons for false positives and false negatives at CEM. False positives at CEM can be caused by benign lesions with vascularity, including benign tumors, infection or inflammation, benign lesions in the skin, and imaging artifacts. False negatives at CEM can be attributed to incomplete or inadequate visualization of lesions, marked background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) obscuring cancer, lack of lesion contrast enhancement due to technical issues or less-vascular cancers, artifacts, and errors of lesion perception or characterization. When possible, real-time interpretation of CEM studies is ideal. If additional views are necessary, they may be obtained while contrast material is still in the breast parenchyma. Until recently, a limitation of CEM was the lack of CEM-guided biopsy capability. However, in 2020, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration cleared two devices to support CEM-guided biopsy using a stereotactic biopsy technique. The authors review various causes of false-positive and false-negative contrast-enhanced mammograms and discuss strategies to reduce these diagnostic errors to improve cancer detection while mitigating unnecessary additional imaging and procedures. ©RSNA, 2023 Quiz questions for this article are available in the supplemental material.

Imaging Characteristics of and Multidisciplinary Management Considerations for Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia and Flat Epithelial Atypia: Review of Current Literature.

High-risk lesions of the breast are frequently encountered in percutaneous biopsy specimens. While benign, these lesions have historically undergone surgical excision due to their potential to be upgraded to malignancy. However, there is emerging evidence that a tailored management approach should be considered to reduce overtreatment of these lesions. Flat epithelial atypia (FEA) and atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) are two of the most commonly encountered high-risk lesions. FEA has been shown to have a relatively low rate of progression to malignancy, and some guidelines are now recommending observation over routine excision in select cases. Selective observation may be reasonable in cases where the target lesion is small and completely removed at biopsy and when there are no underlying risk factors, such as a history of breast cancer or genetic mutation or concurrent ADH. ADH has the highest potential upgrade rate to malignancy of all the high-risk lesions. Most society guidelines continue to recommend surgical excision of this lesion. More recently, some literature suggests that ADH lesions that appear completely removed at biopsy, involve limited foci (less than two or three) with no necrosis or significant atypia, manifest as a small group of mammographic calcifications, or demonstrate no enhancement at MRI may be reasonable for observation. Ultimately, management of all high-risk lesions must be based on a multidisciplinary approach that considers all patient, radiologic, clinical, and histopathologic factors. ©RSNA, 2023 Quiz questions for this article are available in the supplemental material.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis, Version 1.2023.

The NCCN Guidelines for Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis provide health care providers with a practical, consistent framework for screening and evaluating a spectrum of clinical presentations and breast lesions. The NCCN Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis Panel is composed of a multidisciplinary team of experts in the field, including representation from medical oncology, gynecologic oncology, surgical oncology, internal medicine, family practice, preventive medicine, pathology, diagnostic and interventional radiology, as well as patient advocacy. The NCCN Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis Panel meets at least annually to review emerging data and comments from reviewers within their institutions to guide updates to existing recommendations. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel's decision-making and discussion surrounding the most recent updates to the guideline's screening recommendations.

Evolution of Breast Cancer Recurrence Risk Prediction: A Systematic Review of Statistical and Machine Learning-Based Models.

PURPOSE: Selection of appropriate adjuvant therapy to ultimately reduce the risk of breast cancer (BC) recurrence is a challenge for medical oncologists. Several automated risk prediction models have been developed using retrospective clinical data and have evolved significantly over the years in terms of predictors of recurrence, data usage, and predictive techniques (statistical/machine learning [ML]). METHODS: Following PRISMA guidelines, we performed a systematic literature review of the aforementioned statistical and ML models published between January 2008 and December 2022 through searching five digital databases-PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Cochrane, and Web of Science. The comprehensive search yielded a total of 163 papers and after a screening process focusing on papers that dealt exclusively with statistical/ML methods, only 23 papers were deemed appropriate for further analysis. We benchmarked the studies on the basis of development, evaluation metrics, and validation strategy with an added emphasis on racial diversity of patients included in the studies. RESULTS: In total, 30.4% of the included studies use statistical techniques, while 69.6% are ML-based. Among these, traditional ML models (support vector machines, decision tree, logistic regression, and naïve Bayes) are the most frequently used (26.1%) along with deep learning (26.1%). Deep learning and ensemble learning provide the most accurate predictions (AUC = 0.94 each). CONCLUSION: ML-based prediction models exhibit outstanding performance, yet their practical applicability might be hindered by limited interpretability and reduced generalization. Moreover, predictive models for BC recurrence often focus on limited variables related to tumor, treatment, molecular, and clinical features. Imbalanced classes and the lack of open-source data sets impede model development and validation. Furthermore, existing models predominantly overlook African and Middle Eastern populations, as they are trained and validated mainly on Caucasian and Asian patients.

Urbanicity, Income, and Mammography-Use Disparities Among American Indian Women.

INTRODUCTION: Reported breast cancer screening among American Indian women is consistently below that of White women. The last claims-based trends were from 1991 to 2001. This study updates mammography trends for American Indian women and examines the impact of race, urbanicity, and income on long-term mammography use. METHODS: This was a multi-year (2005-2019), retrospective study of women aged 40-89 years using a 5% sample of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries residing in Arizona, California, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Washington. This study used multivariable logistic regression to examine the impact of urbanicity and income on receiving mammography for American Indian women compared with that for White women. Analyses were conducted in 2022. RESULTS: Overall, annual age-adjusted mammography use declined from 205 per 1,000 in 2005 to 165 per 1,000 in 2019. The slope of these declines was significantly steeper (difference = -2.41, p<0.001) for White women (-3.06) than for American Indian women (-0.65). Mammography-use odds across all urbanicity categories were less for American Indian women than for White women compared with those of their respective metropolitan counterparts (e.g., rural: 0.96, 95% CI=0.77, 1.20 for American Indian women and 1.47, 99% CI=1.39, 1.57 for White women). Although residing in higher-income communities was not associated with mammography use for American Indian women, it was 31% higher for White women (OR=1.31, 99% CI=1.28, 1.34). CONCLUSIONS: The disparity in annual age-adjusted mammography use between American Indian and White women narrowed between 2005 and 2019. However, the association of urbanicity and community income on mammography use differs substantially between American Indian and White women. Policies to reduce disparities need to consider these differences.

Relationship between Race and Access to Newer Mammographic Technology in Women with Medicare Insurance.

Background Racial disparities in breast cancer mortality have been reported. Mammographic technology has undergone two major technology transitions since 2000: first, the transition from screen-film mammography (SFM) to full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and second, the transition to digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). Purpose To examine the relationship between use of newer mammographic technology and race in women receiving mammography services. Materials and Methods This was a multiyear (January 2005 to December 2020) retrospective study of women aged 40-89 years with Medicare fee-for-service insurance who underwent mammography. Data were obtained using a 5% research identifiable sample of all Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. Within-institution and comparable-institution use of mammographic technology between Black women or women of other races and White women were assessed with multivariable logistic and linear regression, respectively, adjusted for age, race, Charlson comorbidity index, per capita income, urbanicity, and institutional capability. Results Between 2005 and 2020, there were 4 028 696 institutional mammography claims for women (mean age, 72 years ± 8 [SD]). Within an institution, the odds ratio (OR) of Black women receiving digital mammography rather than SFM in 2005 was 0.80 (95% CI: 0.70, 0.91; P < .001) when compared with White women; these differences remained until 2009. Compared with White women, the use of DBT within an institution was less likely for Black women from 2015 to 2020 (OR, 0.84; 95% CI: 0.81, 0.87; P < .001). Across institutions, there were racial differences in digital mammography use, which followed a U-shaped pattern, and the differences peaked at 3.8 percentage points less for Black compared with White women (95% CI: -6.1, -1.6; P = .001) in 2011 and then decreased to 1.2 percentage points less (95% CI: -2.2, -0.2; P = .02) in 2016. Conclusion In the Medicare population, Black women had less access to new mammographic imaging technology compared with White women for both the transition from screen-film mammography to digital mammography and then for the transition to digital breast tomosynthesis. © RSNA, 2022 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Lee and Lawson in this issue.

Barriers to Implementation of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography in Clinical Practice: AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review.

Accumulating evidence shows that contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) has higher diagnostic performance than digital mammography and ultrasound and comparable diagnostic performance to MRI for various indications. CEM also offers certain practical advantages for patients. Nevertheless, the clinical implementation of CEM has been limited because of a range of factors. This AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review explores such factors hindering CEM implementation. These factors include the following: the risks of iodinated contrast media, increased radiation exposure, indications for which CEM is not the preferred test or for which further evidence is needed, workflow adjustments needed when performing CEM examinations, incomplete availability of CEM-guided biopsy systems, and reimbursement challenges. Considerations that currently mitigate or are expected to mitigate these factors are also highlighted.

Contrast Enhanced Mammography in Routine Clinical Practice: Frequency and Malignancy Rates of Enhancing Otherwise Occult Findings.

BACKGROUND: In routine clinical practice, contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) examinations identify enhancing findings seen only on subtraction images that have no low-energy mammographic or sonographic correlate. The purpose of this study is to report the frequency and malignancy rates of enhancing findings seen only on subtraction images in a tertiary care breast imaging practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Consecutive review of CEM exams from December 2015 to May 2020. Chi square tests were used to determine associations between cancer diagnosis and clinical characteristics of enhancing findings seen only on subtraction images, P < .05 indicating a statistically significant difference. RESULTS: Four percent (100/2464) of CEM examinations identified 108 enhancing findings seen only on subtraction images. Twenty of those CEM enhancing findings were directly managed as a multifocal disease. Of those further evaluated with MR, 23% (19/78) with associated MR correlates were treated surgically as presumed multicentric or multifocal disease following multidisciplinary review. The remaining 76% (59/78) of enhancing findings were seen only on subtraction images, these included: 20% (12/59) and downgraded to benign on MR 80% (47/59) with suspicious findings which underwent MR vacuum assisted breast biopsy yielding: 26% (12/47) malignancy, 9% (4/47) high risk, and 66% (31/47) benign diagnoses. CONCLUSION: Enhancing findings seen on subtraction only CEM images are seen in 4% of cases in clinical practice. MR correlation can help characterize CEM findings to: (1) avoid unnecessary biopsy for benign findings, and (2) guide tissue sampling or empiric surgical planning for suspicious findings.

Accuracy of Posttreatment Imaging for Evaluation of Residual in Breast Disease After Neoadjuvant Endocrine Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET) can help downstage certain breast cancers prior to surgical resection. This study measured the accuracy of conventional mammography (MMG), ultrasound (US), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) for assessing breast tumor size in response to NET. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent surgery after NET from 2013 to 2021 were identified. The maximal dimension of residual tumor on imaging was compared with the maximal dimension on final pathology. Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (rc) and Spearman's rank correlation coefficient (r) were used to assess agreement. RESULTS: In total, 119 patients with invasive breast cancer underwent NET, posttreatment imaging, and surgery. Tumor size reported on posttreatment CEM correlated with size on final pathology to within 1 cm in n = 42 (58%) of patients, equivalent to the accuracy of MRI (n = 35, 58%). Size was accurately predicted by US in 54% and in 48% of MMG. Posttreatment imaging tumor size was moderately correlated with final tumor size on pathology CEM (r = 0.49; rc = 0.38), MRI (r = 0.52; rc = 0.45), and US (r = 0.41; rc = 0.28). MMG was weakly correlated (r = 0.21; rc = 0.16). Similar findings were shown in subgroup analysis; in those who received all four post-NET imaging, CEM and MRI again performed comparably, with r = 0.36 and 0.41, respectively, US (r = 0.43) and MMG (r = 0.28). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with mammography and US, CEM and MRI had higher accuracy in estimating final tumor size for breast cancers treated with NET. Contrast-enhanced imaging is a helpful adjunct when response to preoperative therapy will impact clinical management.

Association of breast cancer risk, density, and stiffness: global tissue stiffness on breast MR elastography (MRE).

PURPOSE: Quantify in vivo biomechanical tissue properties in various breast densities and in average risk and high-risk women using Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)/MRE and examine the association between breast biomechanical properties and cancer risk based on patient demographics and clinical data. METHODS: Patients with average risk or high-risk of breast cancer underwent 3.0 T breast MR imaging and elastography. Breast parenchymal enhancement (BPE), density (from most recent mammogram), stiffness, elasticity, and viscosity were recorded. Within each breast density group (non-dense versus dense), stiffness, elasticity, and viscosity were compared across risk groups (average versus high). Separately for stiffness, elasticity, and viscosity, a multivariable logistic regression model was used to evaluate whether the MRE parameter predicted risk status after controlling for clinical factors. RESULTS: 50 average risk and 86 high-risk patients were included. Risk groups were similar in age, density, and menopausal status. Among patients with dense breasts, mean stiffness, elasticity, and viscosity were significantly higher in high-risk patients (N = 55) compared to average risk patients (N = 34; all p < 0.001). Stiffness remained a significant predictor of risk status (OR = 4.26, 95% CI [1.96, 9.25]) even after controlling for breast density, BPE, age, and menopausal status. Similar results were seen for elasticity and viscosity. CONCLUSION: A structurally based, quantitative biomarker of tissue stiffness obtained from MRE is associated with differences in breast cancer risk in dense breasts. Tissue stiffness could provide a novel prognostic marker to help identify high-risk women with dense breasts who would benefit from increased surveillance and/or risk reduction measures.

A Comparison of Perceived Lifetime Breast Cancer Risk to Calculated Lifetime Risk Using the Gail Risk Assessment Tool.

Background: Understanding the accuracy of a woman's perceived breast cancer risk can enhance shared decision-making about breast cancer screening through provider and patient discussion. We aim to report and compare women's perceived lifetime breast cancer risk to calculated lifetime breast cancer risk. Methods: Women presenting to Mayo Clinic in Arizona and Minnesota in July 2016 completed a survey assessing their perceived breast cancer risk. Lifetime Gail risk scores were calculated from questions pertaining to health history and were then compared with perceived breast cancer risk. Results: A total of 550 predominantly white, married, and well-educated (≥college) women completed surveys. Using lifetime Gail risk scores, 5.6% were classified as high risk (>20% lifetime risk), 7.7% were classified as intermediate risk (15%-20%), and 86.6% were classified as average risk (<15%). Of the 27 women who were classified as high risk, 18 (66.7%) underestimated their risk and of the 37 women who were intermediate risk, 12 (32.4%) underestimated risk. Women more likely to underestimate their risk had a reported history of an abnormal mammogram and at least one or more relative with a history of breast cancer. Surveyed women tended to overestimate risk 4.3 (130/30) times as often as they underestimated risk. Conclusion: In a group of predominantly white, educated, and married cohort of women, there was a large portion of women in the elevated risk groups who underestimated risk. Specific aspects of medical history were associated with underestimation including a history of abnormal mammogram and family history of breast cancer. Overall, in our sample, more women overestimated than underestimated risk.

Breast Density Knowledge and Awareness Among Latinas in a Low-Resource Setting.

PURPOSE: Latinas in low-resource settings face additional barriers to understanding mammographic breast density (MBD) implications. The authors compared MBD awareness and knowledge in Latinas from a safety-net clinic in Arizona with a national sample. METHODS: Latinas 40 to 74 years of age were recruited within a safety-net clinic during screening mammography appointments from 2016 to 2019 (AZ cohort) and from a nationally representative online panel in 2017 (NS cohort). Surveys completed in either English or Spanish assessed awareness and knowledge of MBD. Chi-square tests and logistic regression were used for comparisons. RESULTS: The NS cohort (n = 152) was older, more educated, more likely to have undergone prior mammography, and more likely to prefer English compared with the AZ cohort (n = 1,327) (P ≤ .03 for all) The NS cohort was more likely to be aware of MBD (32.6% versus 20.7%). Of those aware, the NS cohort was more likely to understand MBD's effect on masking (67.8% versus 37.0%) and breast cancer risk (72.2% versus 32.6%) compared with the AZ cohort (P ≤ .001 for all). Adjusting for age, education, screening history, and language, MBD awareness was similar between the two cohorts (adjusted odds ratio [ORadj], 0.95; P = .83), but knowledge of MBD as a masking factor (ORadj, 2.8; P = .03) and risk factor (ORadj, 7.2; P < .001) remained higher in the NS cohort compared with the AZ cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in MBD awareness, but not knowledge, between Latinas in a low-resource setting compared with a national sample could be explained by age, education, screening history, and language preference, underscoring the need for tailored approaches to MBD education among Latinas.

Evaluating educational interventions to increase breast density awareness among Latinas: A randomized trial in a Federally Qualified Health Center.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this randomized trial was to evaluate the short-term effect of bilingual written and interpersonal education regarding mammographic breast density (MBD). METHODS: Latinas aged 40 to 74 years who were presenting for screening mammography were recruited and randomized 1:1:1 to receive a letter with their mammogram and MBD results (usual care [UC]), a letter plus a brochure (enhanced care [ENH]), or a letter plus a brochure and telephonic promotora education (interpersonal care [INT]). Surveys were administered at enrollment (T0 ) and 2 weeks to 6 months after intervention delivery (T1 ). Differences were assessed with χ2 , Kruskal-Wallis, and McNemar tests and pairwise comparisons as appropriate. INT metrics and audio recordings were analyzed with descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Between October 2016 and October 2019, 943 of 1108 Latina participants (85%) completed both surveys. At T1 , INT participants were more likely (P < .001) to report seeing their MBD results in the letter (70.2%) than UC (53.1%) or ENH participants (55.1%). The percentage of INT women who reported speaking with a provider about MBD (29.0%) was significantly greater (P < .001) than the percentage of UC (14.7%) or ENH participants (15.6%). All groups saw significant (P < .001) but nondifferential improvements in their knowledge of MBD as a masking and risk factor. In the INT group, the promotora delivered education to 77.1% of the 446 participants randomized to INT and answered questions at 28.3% of the encounters for an average of $4.70 per participant. CONCLUSIONS: Among Latinas in a low-resource setting, MBD knowledge may increase with written or interpersonal education, but with modest investment, interpersonal education may better improve MBD awareness and prompt patient-provider discussions.

The Dense Breast Clinic: Initial Experience of a Patient-Centered Breast Imaging Clinic.

OBJECTIVE: Establish a radiologist-run consultation clinic to review breast density and supplemental screening exams (SSEs) directly with patients in response to breast density reporting laws. METHODS: Breast radiologists opened and staffed a clinic for formal patient consultations regarding breast density and SSEs. An IRB-approved questionnaire assessed patient knowledge of breast density, SSEs, and encounter satisfaction. Comparative statistical analyses were performed on knowledge-based questions. RESULTS: From February 2019 to February 2021, 294 reimbursable consultations were performed with 215 patients completing pre- and post-consultation questionnaires (survey response rate, 73%). Median patient age was 58 years (range, 34-86 years) and 9% (19/210) had a personal history of breast cancer. An increase in patient knowledge of breast density and SSEs was observed as follows: breast density categories (9% correct pre-consultation (20/215), 86% correct post-consultation (185/215), P < 0.001), dense breast effects on cancer risk (39% correct pre-consultation (83/215), 84% post-consultation (180/215)), mammogram sensitivity (90% correct pre-consultation (193/215), 94% post-consultation (201/215)), and increased cancer detection with SSEs (82% correct pre-consultation (177/215), 95% post-consultation (205/215)) (P < 0.001). Post-consultation, 96% (200/209) were satisfied with the usefulness of information, 89% (186/209) strongly agreed they had sufficient knowledge of SSEs, and 81% (167/205) agreed they would like future opportunities to meet with a breast radiologist. CONCLUSION: A consultation clinic staffed by breast radiologists focused on breast density and supplemental breast cancer screening can provide personalized patient counseling, engage patients in shared decision making, assist referring clinicians, and support high quality patient-centered care.

Supplemental Cancer Screening for Women With Dense Breasts: Guidance for Health Care Professionals.

Mammography is the standard for breast cancer screening. The sensitivity of mammography in identifying breast cancer, however, is reduced for women with dense breasts. Thirty-eight states have passed laws requiring that all women be notified of breast tissue density results in their mammogram report. The notification includes a statement that differs by state, encouraging women to discuss supplemental screening options with their health care professionals (HCPs). Several supplemental screening tests are available for women with dense breast tissue, but no established guidelines exist to direct HCPs in their recommendation of preferred supplemental screening test. Tailored screening, which takes into consideration the patient's mammographic breast density and lifetime breast cancer risk, can guide breast cancer screening strategies that are more comprehensive. This review describes the benefits and limitations of the various available supplemental screening tests to guide HCPs and patients in choosing the appropriate breast cancer screening.

Contrast-Enhanced Mammography for Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer in Women With Breast Augmentation: Preliminary Findings.

In 17 women with newly diagnosed breast cancer who underwent contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) and MRI, both modalities were found to be concordant for the index cancer. In six of the 17 women, CEM showed an additional lesion that was confirmed by MRI. Of these six additional lesions, three were multifocal, one was multicentric, and two were contralateral; two of the six were malignant. MRI did not identify any additional cancers that were not identified on CEM. CEM may have a role in women with breast augmentation and either a contraindication or limited access to MRI.