Assessment of Radiologist Performance in Breast Cancer Screening Using Digital Breast Tomosynthesis vs Digital Mammography.

Importance: Many US radiologists have screening mammography recall rates above the expert-recommended threshold of 12%. The influence of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) on the distribution of radiologist recall rates is uncertain. Objective: To evaluate radiologists' recall and cancer detection rates before and after beginning interpretation of DBT examinations. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included 198 radiologists from 104 radiology facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium who interpreted 251 384 DBT and 2 000 681 digital mammography (DM) screening examinations from 2009 to 2017, including 126 radiologists (63.6%) who interpreted DBT examinations during the study period and 72 (36.4%) who exclusively interpreted DM examinations (to adjust for secular trends). Data were analyzed from April 2018 to July 2019. Exposures: Digital breast tomosynthesis and DM screening examinations. Main Outcomes and Measures: Recall rate and cancer detection rate. Results: A total of 198 radiologists interpreted 2 252 065 DM and DBT examinations (2 000 681 [88.8%] DM examinations; 251 384 [11.2%] DBT examinations; 710 934 patients [31.6%] aged 50-59 years; 1 448 981 [64.3%] non-Hispanic white). Among the 126 radiologists (63.6%) who interpreted DBT examinations, 83 (65.9%) had unadjusted DM recall rates of no more than 12% before using DBT, with a median (interquartile range) recall rate of 10.0% (7.5%-13.0%). On DBT examinations, 96 (76.2%) had an unadjusted recall rate of no more than 12%, with a median (interquartile range) recall rate of 8.8% (6.3%-11.3%). A secular trend in recall rate was observed, with the multivariable-adjusted risk of recall on screening examinations declining by 1.2% (95% CI, 0.9%-1.5%) per year. After adjusting for examination characteristics and secular trends, recall rates were 15% lower on DBT examinations compared with DM examinations interpreted before DBT use (relative risk, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.83-0.87). Adjusted recall rates were significantly lower on DBT examinations compared with DM examinations interpreted before DBT use for 45 radiologists (35.7%) and significantly higher for 18 (14.3%); 63 (50.0%) had no statistically significant change. The unadjusted cancer detection rate on DBT was 5.3 per 1000 examinations (95% CI, 5.0-5.7 per 1000 examinations) compared with 4.7 per 1000 examinations (95% CI, 4.6-4.8 per 1000 examinations) on DM examinations interpreted before DM use (multivariable-adjusted risk ratio, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.11-1.33). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, DBT was associated with an overall decrease in recall rate and an increase in cancer detection rate. However, our results indicated that there is wide variability among radiologists, including a subset of radiologists who experienced increased recall rates on DBT examinations. Radiology practices should audit radiologist DBT screening performance and consider additional DBT training for radiologists whose performance does not improve as expected.

Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Screening: Patterns Among Women With Medicaid and Commercial Insurance.

INTRODUCTION: Despite healthcare reforms mandating expanded insurance coverage and reduced out-of-pocket costs for preventive care, cancer screening rates remain relatively static. No study has measured cancer screening rates for multiple tests among non-Medicare patients. METHODS: This retrospective, population-based claims analysis, conducted in 2016-2017, of commercially insured and Medicaid-insured women aged 30-59 years enrolled in IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicaid Databases (containing approximately 90 and 17 million enrollees, respectively) during 2010-2015 describes screening rates for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer. Key outcomes were (1) proportion screened for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer among the age-eligible population compared with accepted age-based recommendations and (2) proportion with longer-than-recommended intervals between tests. RESULTS: One half (54.7%) of commercially insured women aged 40-59 years (n=1,538,444) were screened three or more times during the 6-year study period for breast cancer; for Medicaid-insured women (n=78,897), the rates were lower (23.7%). One third (43.4%) of commercially insured and two thirds (68.9%) of Medicaid-insured women had a >2.5-year gap between mammograms. Among women aged 30-59 years, 59.3% of commercially insured women and 31.4% of Medicaid-insured women received two or more Pap tests. The proportion of patients with a >3.5-year gap between Pap tests was 33.9% (commercially insured) and 57.1% (Medicaid-insured). Among women aged 50-59 years, 63.3% of commercially insured women and 47.2% of Medicaid-insured women were screened at least one time for colorectal cancer. Almost all women aged 30-59 years (commercially insured, 99.1%; Medicaid-insured, 98.9%) had at least one healthcare encounter. CONCLUSIONS: Breast and cervical cancer screenings remain underutilized among both commercially insured and Medicaid-insured populations, with lower rates among the Medicaid-insured population. However, almost all women had at least one healthcare encounter, suggesting opportunities for better coordinated care.

Population-Based Assessment of the Association Between Magnetic Resonance Imaging Background Parenchymal Enhancement and Future Primary Breast Cancer Risk.

PURPOSE: To evaluate comparative associations of breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) and mammographic breast density with subsequent breast cancer risk. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We examined women undergoing breast MRI in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium from 2005 to 2015 (with one exam in 2000) using qualitative BPE assessments of minimal, mild, moderate, or marked. Breast density was assessed on mammography performed within 5 years of MRI. Among women diagnosed with breast cancer, the first BPE assessment was included if it was more than 3 months before their first diagnosis. Breast cancer risk associated with BPE was estimated using Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: Among 4,247 women, 176 developed breast cancer (invasive, n = 129; ductal carcinoma in situ,n = 47) over a median follow-up time of 2.8 years. More women with cancer had mild, moderate, or marked BPE than women without cancer (80% v 66%, respectively). Compared with minimal BPE, increasing BPE levels were associated with significantly increased cancer risk (mild: hazard ratio [HR], 1.80; 95% CI, 1.12 to 2.87; moderate: HR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.51 to 3.86; and marked: HR, 3.41; 95% CI, 2.05 to 5.66). Compared with women with minimal BPE and almost entirely fatty or scattered fibroglandular breast density, women with mild, moderate, or marked BPE demonstrated elevated cancer risk if they had almost entirely fatty or scattered fibroglandular breast density (HR, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.19 to 4.46) or heterogeneous or extremely dense breasts (HR, 2.61; 95% CI, 1.44 to 4.72), with no significant interaction (P = .82). Combined mild, moderate, and marked BPE demonstrated significantly increased risk of invasive cancer (HR, 2.73; 95% CI, 1.66 to 4.49) but not ductal carcinoma in situ (HR, 1.48; 95% CI, 0.72 to 3.05). CONCLUSION: BPE is associated with future invasive breast cancer risk independent of breast density. BPE should be considered for risk prediction models for women undergoing breast MRI.

Communication Practices of Mammography Facilities and Timely Follow-up of a Screening Mammogram with a BI-RADS 0 Assessment.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to evaluate the association of communication practices with timely follow-up of screening mammograms read as Breast Imaging Reporting and Data Systems (BI-RADS) 0 in the Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens (PROSPR) consortium. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A radiology facility survey was conducted in 2015 with responses linked to screening mammograms obtained in 2011-2014. We considered timely follow-up to be within 15 days of the screening mammogram. Generalized estimating equation models were used to evaluate the association between modes of communication with patients and providers and timely follow-up, adjusting for PROSPR site, patient age, and race and ethnicity. RESULTS: The analysis included 34,680 mammography examinations with a BI-RADS 0 assessment among 28 facilities. Across facilities, 85.6% of examinations had a follow-up within 15 days. Patients in a facility where routine practice was to contact the patient by phone if follow-up imaging was recommended were more likely to have timely follow-up (odds ratio [OR] 4.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.76-7.76), whereas standard use of mail was associated with reduced timely follow-up (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.30-0.75). Facilities that had standard use of electronic medical records to report the need for follow-up imaging to a provider had less timely follow-up (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.35-0.90). Facilities that routinely contacted patients by mail if they missed a follow-up imaging visit were more likely to have timely follow-up (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.02-2.69). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support the value of telephone communication to patients in relation to timely follow-up. Future research is needed to evaluate the role of communication in completing the breast cancer screening episode.

Comparative effectiveness of incorporating a hypothetical DCIS prognostic marker into breast cancer screening.

PURPOSE: Due to limitations in the ability to identify non-progressive disease, ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is usually managed similarly to localized invasive breast cancer. We used simulation modeling to evaluate the potential impact of a hypothetical test that identifies non-progressive DCIS. METHODS: A discrete-event model simulated a cohort of U.S. women undergoing digital screening mammography. All women diagnosed with DCIS underwent the hypothetical DCIS prognostic test. Women with test results indicating progressive DCIS received standard breast cancer treatment and a decrement to quality of life corresponding to the treatment. If the DCIS test indicated non-progressive DCIS, no treatment was received and women continued routine annual surveillance mammography. A range of test performance characteristics and prevalence of non-progressive disease were simulated. Analysis compared discounted quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs for test scenarios to base-case scenarios without the test. RESULTS: Compared to the base case, a perfect prognostic test resulted in a 40% decrease in treatment costs, from $13,321 to $8005 USD per DCIS case. A perfect test produced 0.04 additional QALYs (16 days) for women diagnosed with DCIS, added to the base case of 5.88 QALYs per DCIS case. The results were sensitive to the performance characteristics of the prognostic test, the proportion of DCIS cases that were non-progressive in the model, and the frequency of mammography screening in the population. CONCLUSION: A prognostic test that identifies non-progressive DCIS would substantially reduce treatment costs but result in only modest improvements in quality of life when averaged over all DCIS cases.

Value Analysis of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Breast Cancer Screening in a US Medicaid Population.

PURPOSE: Better understanding regarding the clinical-economic value of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) for breast cancer screening for Medicaid enrollees is needed to help inform sound, value-based decision making. The objective of this study was to conduct a clinical-economic value analysis of DBT for breast cancer screening among women enrolled in Medicaid to assess the potential clinical benefits, associated expenditures, and net budget impact of DBT. METHODS: Two annual screening mammography scenarios were evaluated with an economic model: (1) full-field digital mammography and (2) combined full-field digital mammography and DBT. The model focused on two main drivers of DBT value: (1) capacity for DBT to reduce the number of women recalled for additional follow-up imaging and diagnostic services and (2) capacity of DBT to facilitate earlier diagnosis of cancer at earlier stages, when treatment costs are lower. RESULTS: Model analysis results showed that the use of DBT as a mammographic screening modality by Medicaid enrollees potentially reduces the need for follow-up diagnostic services and improves the detection of invasive cancers, allowing earlier, less costly treatment. With the modest incremental reimbursement of $37 for DBT expected for a typical Medicaid claim, annual cost savings from DBT predicted by the model amounts to $8.14 per patient, potentially translating into more than $12,000 savings per year for an average-sized Medicaid plan and as much as $207,000 savings per year for a typical state Medicaid program. CONCLUSIONS: Wider adoption of DBT presents an opportunity to deliver value-based care to Medicaid programs and to help address disparities and barriers to accessing preventive care by some of the nation's most vulnerable citizens.