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.

Digital Breast Tomosynthesis versus Digital Mammography Screening Performance on Successive Screening Rounds from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.

Background Prior cross-sectional studies have observed that breast cancer screening with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) has a lower recall rate and higher cancer detection rate compared with digital mammography (DM). Purpose To evaluate breast cancer screening outcomes with DBT versus DM on successive screening rounds. Materials and Methods In this retrospective cohort study, data from 58 breast imaging facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium were collected. Analysis included women aged 40-79 years undergoing DBT or DM screening from 2011 to 2020. Absolute differences in screening outcomes by modality and screening round were estimated during the study period by using generalized estimating equations with marginal standardization to adjust for differences in women's risk characteristics across modality and round. Results A total of 523 485 DBT examinations (mean age of women, 58.7 years ± 9.7 [SD]) and 1 008 123 DM examinations (mean age, 58.4 years ± 9.8) among 504 863 women were evaluated. DBT and DM recall rates decreased with successive screening round, but absolute recall rates in each round were significantly lower with DBT versus DM (round 1 difference, -3.3% [95% CI: -4.6, -2.1] [P < .001]; round 2 difference, -1.8% [95% CI: -2.9, -0.7] [P = .003]; round 3 or above difference, -1.2% [95% CI: -2.4, -0.1] [P = .03]). DBT had significantly higher cancer detection (difference, 0.6 per 1000 examinations [95% CI: 0.2, 1.1]; P = .009) compared with DM only for round 3 and above. There were no significant differences in interval cancer rate (round 1 difference, 0.00 per 1000 examinations [95% CI: -0.24, 0.30] [P = .96]; round 2 or above difference, 0.04 [95% CI: -0.19, 0.31] [P = .76]) or total advanced cancer rate (round 1 difference, 0.00 per 1000 examinations [95% CI: -0.15, 0.19] [P = .94]; round 2 or above difference, -0.06 [95% CI: -0.18, 0.11] [P = .43]). Conclusion DBT had lower recall rates and could help detect more cancers than DM across three screening rounds, with no difference in interval or advanced cancer rates. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Skaane in this issue.

Breast Biopsy Recommendations and Breast Cancers Diagnosed during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic reduced mammography use, potentially delaying breast cancer diagnoses. Purpose To examine breast biopsy recommendations and breast cancers diagnosed before and during the COVID-19 pandemic by mode of detection (screen detected vs symptomatic) and women's characteristics. Materials and Methods In this secondary analysis of prospectively collected data, monthly breast biopsy recommendations after mammography, US, or both with subsequent biopsy performed were examined from 66 facilities of the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium between January 2019 and September 2020. The number of monthly and cumulative biopsies recommended and performed and the number of subsequent cancers diagnosed during the pandemic period (March 2020 to September 2020) were compared with data from the prepandemic period using Wald χ2 tests. Analyses were stratified by mode of detection and race or ethnicity. Results From January 2019 to September 2020, 17 728 biopsies were recommended and performed, with 6009 cancers diagnosed. From March to September 2020, there were substantially fewer breast biopsy recommendations with cancer diagnoses when compared with the same period in 2019 (1650 recommendations in 2020 vs 2171 recommendations in 2019 [24% fewer], P < .001), predominantly due to fewer screen-detected cancers (722 cancers in 2020 vs 1169 cancers in 2019 [38% fewer], P < .001) versus symptomatic cancers (895 cancers in 2020 vs 965 cancers in 2019 [7% fewer], P = .27). The decrease in cancer diagnoses was largest in Asian (67 diagnoses in 2020 vs 142 diagnoses in 2019 [53% fewer], P = .06) and Hispanic (82 diagnoses in 2020 vs 145 diagnoses in 2019 [43% fewer], P = .13) women, followed by Black women (210 diagnoses in 2020 vs 287 diagnoses in 2019 [27% fewer], P = .21). The decrease was smallest in non-Hispanic White women (1128 diagnoses in 2020 vs 1357 diagnoses in 2019 [17% fewer], P = .09). Conclusion There were substantially fewer breast biopsies with cancer diagnoses during the COVID-19 pandemic from March to September 2020 compared with the same period in 2019, with Asian and Hispanic women experiencing the largest declines, followed by Black women. © RSNA, 2022 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Heller in this issue.

Imaging Surveillance Options for Individuals With a Personal History of Breast Cancer: AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review.

Annual surveillance mammography is recommended for breast cancer survivors on the basis of observational studies and meta-analyses showing reduced breast cancer mortality and improved quality of life. However, breast cancer survivors are at higher risk of subsequent breast cancer and have a fourfold increased risk of interval breast cancers compared with individuals without a personal history of breast cancer. Supplemental surveillance modalities offer increased cancer detection compared with mammography alone, but utilization is variable, and benefits must be balanced with possible harms of false-positive findings. In this review, we describe the current state of mammographic surveillance, summarize evidence for supplemental surveillance in breast cancer survivors, and explore a risk-based approach to selecting surveillance imaging strategies. Further research identifying predictors associated with increased risk of interval second breast cancers and development of validated risk prediction tools may help physicians and patients weigh the benefits and harms of surveillance breast imaging and decide on a personalized approach to surveillance for improved breast cancer outcomes.

Mammary collagen architecture and its association with mammographic density and lesion severity among women undergoing image-guided breast biopsy.

BACKGROUND: Elevated mammographic breast density is a strong breast cancer risk factor with poorly understood etiology. Increased deposition of collagen, one of the main fibrous proteins present in breast stroma, has been associated with increased mammographic density. Collagen fiber architecture has been linked to poor outcomes in breast cancer. However, relationships of quantitative collagen fiber features assessed in diagnostic biopsies with mammographic density and lesion severity are not well-established. METHODS: Clinically indicated breast biopsies from 65 in situ or invasive breast cancer cases and 73 frequency matched-controls with a benign biopsy result were used to measure collagen fiber features (length, straightness, width, alignment, orientation and density (fibers/µm2)) using second harmonic generation microscopy in up to three regions of interest (ROIs) per biopsy: normal, benign breast disease, and cancer. Local and global mammographic density volumes were quantified in the ipsilateral breast in pre-biopsy full-field digital mammograms. Associations of fibrillar collagen features with mammographic density and severity of biopsy diagnosis were evaluated using generalized estimating equation models with an independent correlation structure to account for multiple ROIs within each biopsy section. RESULTS: Collagen fiber density was positively associated with the proportion of stroma on the biopsy slide (p < 0.001) and with local percent mammographic density volume at both the biopsy target (p = 0.035) and within a 2 mm perilesional ring (p = 0.02), but not with global mammographic density measures. As severity of the breast biopsy diagnosis increased at the ROI level, collagen fibers tended to be less dense, shorter, straighter, thinner, and more aligned with one another (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Collagen fiber density was positively associated with local, but not global, mammographic density, suggesting that collagen microarchitecture may not translate into macroscopic mammographic features. However, collagen fiber features may be markers of cancer risk and/or progression among women referred for biopsy based on abnormal breast imaging.

Identifying key barriers to effective breast cancer control in rural settings.

Breast cancer is the most common cancer and the second most common cause of cancer mortality among women in the United States. Efforts to promote breast cancer control in rural settings face specific challenges. Access to breast cancer screening, diagnosis, and treatment services is impaired by shortages of primary care and specialist providers, and geographic distance from medical facilities. Women in rural areas have comparable breast cancer mortality rates compared to women in urban settings, but this is due in large part to lower incidence rates and masks a substantial rural/urban disparity in breast cancer survival among women diagnosed with breast cancer. Mammography screening utilization rates are slightly lower among rural women than their urban counterparts, with a corresponding increase in late stage breast cancer. Differences in breast cancer survival persist after controlling for stage at diagnosis, largely due to disparities in access to treatment. Travel distance to treatment centers is the most substantial barrier to improved breast cancer outcomes in rural areas. While numerous interventions have been demonstrated in controlled studies to be effective in promoting treatment access and adherence, widespread dissemination in public health and clinical practice remains lacking. Efforts to improve breast cancer control in rural areas should focus on implementation strategies for improving access to breast cancer treatments.

Multicenter Evaluation of Breast Cancer Screening with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in Combination with Synthetic versus Digital Mammography.

BackgroundDigital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) combined with digital mammography (DM) is increasingly used in the United States instead of DM alone for breast cancer screening. Early screening outcomes incorporating synthetic mammography (SM) with DBT have suggested that SM is an acceptable non-radiation dose alternative to DM.PurposeTo compare multicenter outcomes from breast cancer screening with SM/DBT versus DM/DBT.Materials and MethodsThis was a retrospective study of consecutive screening mammograms obtained at two institutions. Eligible studies consisted of 34 106 DM/DBT examinations between October 3, 2011, and October 31, 2014, and 34 180 SM/DBT examinations between January 7, 2015, and February 2, 2018, at the University of Pennsylvania and 51 148 DM/DBT examinations between January 1, 2012, and May 31, 2016, and 31 929 SM/DBT examinations between June 1, 2016, and March 30, 2018, at the University of Vermont. Demographics of women who attended screening and results from screening were recorded. Recall rate, biopsy rate, false-negative rate, cancer detection rate, positive predictive value, sensitivity, and specificity were calculated according to modality and institution. Descriptive statistics, χ2 tests, and logistic regression were used in analysis.ResultsThe study included 151 363 screening examinations among 151 363 women (mean age, 58.1 years ± 10.9 [standard deviation]). The unadjusted recall rate was lower with SM/DBT than with DM/DBT (7.0% [4630 of 66 109 examinations] for SM/DBT vs 7.9% [6742 of 85 254 examinations] for DM/DBT; P < .01). However, after multivariable adjustment, SM/DBT was associated with a slightly higher recall rate compared with DM/DBT (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.06; adjusted 95% CI: 1.01, 1.11; P = .02). Similarly, after multivariable adjustment, SM/DBT was associated with slightly lower specificity compared with DM/DBT (adjusted OR, 0.95; adjusted 95% CI: 0.90, 0.99; P = .02). There was no statistically significant difference in biopsy rate (P = .54), false-negative rate (P = .38), cancer detection rate (P = .55), invasive or in situ cancer detection rate (P = .52 and P = .98, respectively), positive predictive value (P = .78), or sensitivity (P = .33) for SM/DBT versus DM/DBT overall or within either institution (P > .05 for all).ConclusionBreast cancer screening performance is maintained within benchmarks when synthetic mammography replaces digital mammography in digital breast tomosynthesis imaging.© RSNA, 2020Online supplemental material is available for this article.See also the editorial by Lång in this issue.

Time-varying risks of second events following a DCIS diagnosis in the population-based Vermont DCIS cohort.

PURPOSE: Long-term disease-free survival patterns following surgical, radiation, and endocrine therapy treatments for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) are not well characterized in general US practice. METHODS: We identified 1252 women diagnosed with DCIS in Vermont during 1994-2012 using data from the Vermont Breast Cancer Surveillance System, a statewide registry of breast imaging and pathology records. Poisson regression and Cox regression with time-varying hazards were used to evaluate disease-free survival among self-selected treatment groups. RESULTS: With 7.8 years median follow-up, 192 cases experienced a second breast cancer diagnosis. For women treated with breast-conserving surgery (BCS) alone, the annual rate of second events decreased from 3.1% (95% CI 2.2-4.2%) during follow-up years 1-5 to 1.7% (95% CI 0.7-3.5%) after 10 years. In contrast, the annual rate of second events among women treated with BCS plus adjuvant radiation therapy increased from 1.8% (95% CI 1.1-2.6%) during years 1-5 to 2.8% (95% CI 1.6-4.7%) after 10 years (P < 0.05 for difference in trend compared to BCS alone). Annual rates of second events also increased over time among women treated with BCS plus adjuvant radiation and endocrine therapy (P = 0.01 for difference in trend compared to BCS alone). The rate of contralateral events increased after 10 years for all groups with adjuvant treatments. The rate of second events did not vary over time among women who underwent ipsilateral mastectomy (P = 0.62). CONCLUSIONS: Long-term risk of a second event after DCIS varies over time in a manner dependent on initial treatment.

Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Radiologist Learning Curve.

Background There is growing evidence that digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) results in lower recall rates and higher cancer detection rates when compared with digital mammography. However, whether DBT interpretative performance changes with experience (learning curve effect) is unknown. Purpose To evaluate screening DBT performance by cumulative DBT volume within 2 years after adoption relative to digital mammography (DM) performance 1 year before DBT adoption. Materials and Methods This prospective study included 106 126 DBT and 221 248 DM examinations in 271 362 women (mean age, 57.5 years) from 2010 to 2017 that were interpreted by 104 radiologists from 53 facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate within-radiologist effects of increasing cumulative DBT volume on recall and cancer detection rates relative to DM and was adjusted for examination-level characteristics. Changes were also evaluated by subspecialty and breast density. Results Before DBT adoption, DM recall rate was 10.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 9.5%, 11.4%) and cancer detection rate was 4.0 per 1000 screenings (95% CI: 3.6 per 1000 screenings, 4.5 per 1000 screenings); after DBT adoption, DBT recall rate was lower (9.4%; 95% CI: 8.2%, 10.6%; P = .02) and cancer detection rate was similar (4.6 per 1000 screenings; 95% CI: 4.0 per 1000 screenings, 5.2 per 1000 screenings; P = .12). Relative to DM, DBT recall rate decreased for a cumulative DBT volume of fewer than 400 studies (odds ratio [OR] = 0.83; 95% CI: 0.78, 0.89) and remained lower as volume increased (400-799 studies, OR = 0.8 [95% CI: 0.75, 0.85]; 800-1199 studies, OR = 0.81 [95% CI: 0.76, 0.87]; 1200-1599 studies, OR = 0.78 [95% CI: 0.73, 0.84]; 1600-2000 studies, OR = 0.81 [95% CI: 0.75, 0.88]; P < .001). Improvements were sustained for breast imaging subspecialists (OR range, 0.67-0.85; P < .02) and readers who were not breast imaging specialists (OR range, 0.80-0.85; P < .001). Recall rates decreased more in women with nondense breasts (OR range, 0.68-0.76; P < .001) than in those with dense breasts (OR range, 0.86-0.90; P ≤ .05; P interaction < .001). Cancer detection rates for DM and DBT were similar, regardless of DBT volume (P ≥ .10). Conclusion Early performance improvements after digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) adoption were sustained regardless of DBT volume, radiologist subspecialty, or breast density. © RSNA, 2019 See also the editorial by Hooley in this issue.

Detection Rates for Benign and Malignant Diagnoses on Breast Cancer Screening With Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in a Statewide Mammography Registry Study.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to determine whether detection rates of specific benign and malignant diagnoses differ for breast cancer screening with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) versus full-field digital mammography (FFDM) alone. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed observational data from the Vermont Breast Cancer Surveillance System, including 86,349 DBT screening examinations and 97,378 FFDM screening examinations performed at eight radiology facilities in Vermont that adopted DBT screening during 2012-2016. We determined the most severe diagnosis made within 6 months after positive screening examinations. Multivariable-adjusted logistic regression was used to compare detection rates for specific diagnoses on DBT versus FFDM. RESULTS: Compared with FFDM, DBT had a lower recall rate (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.81; 95% CI, 0.77-0.85) but comparable biopsy rate (OR = 1.05; 95% CI, 0.93-1.17), benign biopsy rate (OR = 1.12; 95% CI, 0.97-1.29), and cancer detection rate (OR = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.78-1.14). Among benign diagnoses, DBT and FFDM had comparable detection rates for nonproliferative lesions (OR = 1.19; 95% CI, 0.92-1.53), fibroepithelial proliferations (OR = 1.24; 95% CI, 0.85-1.81), proliferative lesions without atypia (OR = 1.13; 95% CI, 0.90-1.42), atypical lesions (OR = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.43-1.38), and lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) (OR = 0.92; 95% CI, 0.53-1.61). Among malignant diagnoses, DBT and FFDM had comparable detection rates for ductal carcinoma in situ (OR = 1.05; 95% CI, 0.70-1.57) and invasive breast cancer (OR = 0.92; 95% CI, 0.74-1.13), with no statistically significant differences in detection of invasive ductal carcinoma (OR = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.66-1.06), invasive lobular carcinoma (OR = 1.11; 95% CI, 0.59-2.07), or invasive mixed ductal-lobular carcinoma (OR = 1.49; 95% CI, 0.65-3.39). CONCLUSION: Compared with FFDM, breast cancer screening with DBT has a lower recall rate while detecting a similar distribution of benign and malignant diagnoses.

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.

Breast cancer screening in patients with cancers other than breast.

BACKGROUND: Screening mammography can detect early breast cancers and reduce subsequent cancer mortality. However, there is a lack of consensus as to when to discontinue screening. The absence of clear-cut guidelines on when not to screen means that many patients with advanced malignancies continue screening despite unclear benefit. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of female patients diagnosed with a non-breast malignancy to explore the incidence and effects of screening mammography. Female patients diagnosed with a non-breast malignancy stage II or higher between 2007 and 2012 were identified through the Vermont Cancer Registry and cross-referenced with mammography screening logs from January 1, 2007 to September 30, 2014. Additional data were collected through chart review, in May 2016. RESULTS: Twenty-six percent of women (398/1501) with a stage II or greater cancer (other than breast) diagnosed between 2007 and 2012 had a screening mammogram within the first 5 years of their diagnosis. Of these 398 women, 193 (48.5%) were alive without cancer, 132 (33.2%) had died, and 73 (18.3%) were alive with cancer at the time of chart review. Of those who died, 84 (63.6%) had a stage III or IV cancer. Eighteen (4.5%) had a breast biopsy following a screening mammogram suspicious for cancer, resulting in 13 (3.3%) benign diagnoses and 5 (1.3%) breast cancer diagnoses. No patient died of breast cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Except for highly curable cancers, female patients diagnosed with an advanced non-breast malignancy experienced mortality that outweighs a breast cancer mortality benefit from screening mammography as estimated from prior studies.

Relationship between preoperative breast MRI and surgical treatment of non-metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: More extensive surgical treatments for early stage breast cancer are increasing. The patterns of preoperative MRI overall and by stage for this trend has not been well established. METHODS: Using Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium registry data from 2010 through 2014, we identified women with an incident non-metastatic breast cancer and determined use of preoperative MRI and initial surgical treatment (mastectomy, with or without contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM), reconstruction, and breast conserving surgery ± radiation). Clinical and sociodemographic covariates were included in multivariable logistic regression models to estimate adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Of the 13 097 women, 2217 (16.9%) had a preoperative MRI. Among the women with MRI, results indicated 32% higher odds of unilateral mastectomy compared to breast conserving surgery and of mastectomy with CPM compared to unilateral mastectomy. Women with preoperative MRI also had 56% higher odds of reconstruction. CONCLUSION: Preoperative MRI in women with DCIS and early stage invasive breast cancer is associated with more frequent mastectomy, CPM, and reconstruction surgical treatment. Use of more extensive surgical treatment and reconstruction among women with DCIS and early stage invasive cancer whom undergo MRI warrants further investigation.

Variation in Mammographic Breast Density Assessments Among Radiologists in Clinical Practice: A Multicenter Observational Study.

Background: About half of the United States has legislation requiring radiology facilities to disclose mammographic breast density information to women, often with language recommending discussion of supplemental screening options for women with dense breasts. Objective: To examine variation in breast density assessment across radiologists in clinical practice. Design: Cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses of prospectively collected observational data. Setting: 30 radiology facilities within the 3 breast cancer screening research centers of the Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens (PROSPR) consortium. Participants: Radiologists who interpreted at least 500 screening mammograms during 2011 to 2013 (n = 83). Data on 216 783 screening mammograms from 145 123 women aged 40 to 89 years were included. Measurements: Mammographic breast density, as clinically recorded using the 4 Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System categories (heterogeneously dense and extremely dense categories were considered "dense" for analyses), and patient age, race, and body mass index (BMI). Results: Overall, 36.9% of mammograms were rated as showing dense breasts. Across radiologists, this percentage ranged from 6.3% to 84.5% (median, 38.7% [interquartile range, 28.9% to 50.9%]), with multivariable adjustment for patient characteristics having little effect (interquartile range, 29.9% to 50.8%). Examination of patient subgroups revealed that variation in density assessment across radiologists was pervasive in all but the most extreme patient age and BMI combinations. Among women with consecutive mammograms interpreted by different radiologists, 17.2% (5909 of 34 271) had discordant assessments of dense versus nondense status. Limitation: Quantitative measures of mammographic breast density were not available for comparison. Conclusion: There is wide variation in density assessment across radiologists that should be carefully considered by providers and policymakers when considering supplemental screening strategies. The likelihood of a woman being told she has dense breasts varies substantially according to which radiologist interprets her mammogram. Primary Funding Source: National Institutes of Health.

Relationships between mammographic density, tissue microvessel density, and breast biopsy diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: Women with high levels of mammographic density (MD) have a four- to six-fold increased risk of developing breast cancer; however, most neither have a prevalent tumor nor will they develop one. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies suggest that background parenchymal enhancement, an indicator of vascularity, is related to increased breast cancer risk. Correlations of microvessel density (MVD) in tissue, MD and biopsy diagnosis have not been defined, and we investigated these relationships among 218 women referred for biopsy. METHODS: MVD was determined by counting CD31-positive vessels in whole sections of breast biopsies in three representative areas; average MVD was transformed to approximate normality. Using digital mammograms, we quantified MD volume with single X-ray absorptiometry. We used linear regression to evaluate associations between MVD and MD adjusted for age and body mass index (BMI) overall, and stratified by biopsy diagnosis: cases (in situ or invasive cancer, n = 44) versus non-cases (non-proliferative or proliferative benign breast disease, n = 174). Logistic regression adjusted for age, BMI, and MD was used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) for associations between MVD and biopsy diagnosis. We also assessed whether the MVD-breast cancer association varied by MD. RESULTS: MVD and MD were not consistently associated. Higher MVD was significantly associated with higher odds of in situ/invasive disease (ORAdjusted = 1.69, 95 % CI = 1.17-2.44). MVD-breast cancer associations were strongest among women with greater non-dense volume. CONCLUSIONS: Increased MVD in tissues is associated with breast cancer, independently of MD, consistent with MRI findings suggestive of its possible value as a radiological cancer biomarker.

Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography compared to digital mammography alone: a cohort study within the PROSPR consortium.

Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is emerging as the new standard of care for breast cancer screening based on improved cancer detection coupled with reductions in recall compared to screening with digital mammography (DM) alone. However, many prior studies lack follow-up data to assess false negatives examinations. The purpose of this study is to assess if DBT is associated with improved screening outcomes based on follow-up data from tumor registries or pathology. Retrospective analysis of prospective cohort data from three research centers performing DBT screening in the PROSPR consortium from 2011 to 2014 was performed. Recall and biopsy rates were assessed from 198,881 women age 40-74 years undergoing screening (142,883 DM and 55,998 DBT examinations). Cancer, cancer detection, and false negative rates and positive predictive values were assessed on examinations with one year of follow-up. Logistic regression was used to compare DBT to DM adjusting for research center, age, prior breast imaging, and breast density. There was a reduction in recall with DBT compared to DM (8.7 vs. 10.4 %, p < 0.0001), with adjusted OR = 0.68 (95 % CI = 0.65-0.71). DBT demonstrated a statistically significant increase in cancer detection over DM (5.9 vs. 4.4/1000 screened, adjusted OR = 1.45, 95 % CI = 1.12-1.88), an improvement in PPV1 (6.4 % for DBT vs. 4.1 % for DM, adjusted OR = 2.02, 95 % CI = 1.54-2.65), and no significant difference in false negative rates for DBT compared to DM (0.46 vs. 0.60/1000 screened, p = 0.347). Our data support implementation of DBT screening based on increased cancer detection, reduced recall, and no difference in false negative screening examinations.

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.

Breast cancer detection with short-interval follow-up compared with return to annual screening in patients with benign stereotactic or US-guided breast biopsy results.

PURPOSE: To compare the cancer detection rate and stage after benign stereotactic or ultrasonography (US)-guided core breast biopsy between patients with short-interval follow-up (SIFU) and those who return to annual screening. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) registry and the BCSC Statistical Coordinating Center received institutional review board approval for active and passive consent processes and a waiver of consent. All procedures were HIPAA compliant. BCSC data for 1994-2010 were used to compare ipsilateral breast cancer detection rates and tumor characteristics for diagnoses within 3 months after SIFU (3-8 months) versus return to annual screening (RTAS) mammography (9-18 months) after receiving a benign pathology result from image-guided breast biopsy. RESULTS: In total, 17 631 biopsies with benign findings were identified with SIFU or RTAS imaging. In the SIFU group, 27 ipsilateral breast cancers were diagnosed in 10 715 mammographic examinations (2.5 cancers per 1000 examinations) compared with 16 cancers in 6916 mammographic examinations in the RTAS group (2.3 cancers per 1000 examinations) (P = .88). Sixteen cancers after SIFU (59%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 39%, 78%) were invasive versus 12 after RTAS (75%; 95% CI: 48%, 93%). The invasive cancer rate was 1.5 per 1000 examinations after SIFU (95% CI: 0.9, 2.4) and 1.7 per 1000 examinations (95% CI: 0.9, 3.0) after RTAS (P = .70). Among invasive cancers, 25% were late stage (stage 2B, 3, or 4) in the SIFU group (95% CI: 7%, 52%) versus 27% in the RTAS group (95% CI: 6%, 61%). Positive lymph nodes were found in seven (44%; 95% CI: 20%, 70%) invasive cancers after SIFU and in three (25%; 95% CI: 5%, 57%) invasive cancers after RTAS. CONCLUSION: Similar rates of cancer detection were found between SIFU and RTAS after benign breast biopsy with no significant differences in stage, tumor size, or nodal status, although the present study was limited by sample size. These findings suggest that patients with benign radiologic-pathologic-concordant percutaneous breast biopsy results could return to annual screening.

Registry-based study of trends in breast cancer screening mammography before and after the 2009 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations.

PURPOSE: To determine whether the 2009 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines for breast cancer mammography screening were followed by changes in screening utilization in the state of Vermont. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study was HIPAA compliant and approved by the institutional review board, with waiver of informed consent. Trends in screening mammography utilization during 1997-2011 were examined among approximately 150,000 women aged 40 years and older in the state of Vermont using statewide mammography registry data. RESULTS: The percentage of Vermont women aged 40 years and older screened in the past year declined from 45.3% in 2009% to 41.6% in 2011 (an absolute decrease of -3.7 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -3.3, -4.1). The largest decline in utilization was among women aged 40-49 years (-4.8 percentage points; 95% CI: -4.1, -5.4), although substantial declines were also observed among women aged 50-74 years (-3.0 percentage points; 95% CI: -2.6, -3.5) and women aged 75 years and older (-3.1 percentage points; 95% CI: -2.3, -4.0). The percentage of women aged 50-74 years screened within the past 2 years declined by -3.4 percentage points (95% CI: -3.0, -3.9) from 65.4% in 2009 to 61.9% in 2011. CONCLUSION: After years of increasing screening mammography utilization in Vermont, there was a decline in screening, which coincided with the release of the 2009 USPSTF recommendations. The age-specific patterns in utilization were generally consistent with the USPSTF recommendations, although there was also evidence that the percentage of women aged 50-74 years screened in the past 2 years declined since 2009.