Outcomes of Breast Cancer Screening Strategies Based on Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network Estimates.

Background There is ongoing debate about recommendations for breast cancer screening strategies, specifically regarding the frequency of screening and the age at which to initiate screening. Purpose To compare estimates of breast cancer screening outcomes published by the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) to understand the benefits and risks of different screening scenarios. Materials and Methods Modeling estimates published by CISNET are based on hypothetical cohorts in the United States and compare women, starting at 40 years of age, who do and do not undergo breast cancer screening with mammography. The four scenarios assessed in this study, of multiple possible scenarios, were biennial screening ages 50-74 years (2009 and 2016 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force [USPSTF] recommendations), biennial screening ages 40-74 years (2023 USPSTF draft recommendation), annual screening ages 40-74 years, and annual screening ages 40-79 years. For each scenario, CISNET estimates of median lifetime benefits were compared. Risks that included false-positive screening results per examination and benign biopsies per examination were also calculated and compared. Results Estimates from CISNET 2023 showed that annual screening ages 40-79 years improved breast cancer mortality reduction compared with biennial screening ages 50-74 years and biennial screening ages 40-74 years (41.7%, 25.4%, and 30%, respectively). Annual screening ages 40-79 years averted the most breast cancer deaths (11.5 per 1000) and gained the most life-years (230 per 1000) compared with other screening scenarios (range, 6.7-11.5 per 1000 and 121-230 per 1000, respectively). False-positive screening results per examination were less than 10% for all screening scenarios (range, 6.5%-9.6%) and lowest for annual screening ages 40-79 years (6.5%). Benign biopsies per examination were less than 1.33% for all screening scenarios (range, 0.88%-1.32%) and lowest for annual screening ages 40-79 years (0.88%). Conclusion CISNET 2023 modeling estimates indicate that annual breast cancer screening starting at 40 years of age provides the greatest benefit to women and the least risk per examination. © RSNA, 2024 See also the editorial by Joe in this issue.

Age distributions of breast cancer diagnosis and mortality by race and ethnicity in US women.

BACKGROUND: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) data from 1973-2010 have been used to show that minority women have disproportionately higher percentages of breast cancers diagnosed at younger ages in comparison with White women. METHODS: The authors analyzed SEER 21 invasive breast cancer incidence data for 2014-2017 and National Center for Health Statistics mortality data for 2014-2018 and compared invasive incidence and mortality by age in non-Hispanic Black (NH-Black), Asian American/Pacific Islander (AAPI), Native American, and Hispanic women with those in non-Hispanic White (NH-White) women. They evaluated incidence rates and percentages of invasive breast cancer cases and breast cancer deaths occurring before the age of 50 years along with advanced-stage incidence rates and percentages in minority women versus NH-White women. RESULTS: Recent SEER data showed that invasive breast cancers were diagnosed at significantly younger ages in minority women versus NH-White women. Among women diagnosed with invasive breast cancer, compared with NH-White women, minority women were 72% more likely to be diagnosed under the age of 50 years (relative risk [RR], 1.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.70-1.75), 58% more likely to be diagnosed with advanced-stage breast cancer under the age of 50 years (RR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.55-1.61), and 24% more likely to be diagnosed with advanced-stage (regional or distant) breast cancer at all ages (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.23-1.25). Among women dying of breast cancer, minority women were 127% more likely to die under the age of 50 years than NH-White women. CONCLUSIONS: NH-Black, AAPI, Native American, and Hispanic women have higher proportions of invasive breast cancers at younger ages and at advanced stages and breast cancer deaths at younger ages than NH-White women. LAY SUMMARY: This study analyzes the most recently available data on invasive breast cancers and breast cancer deaths in US women by age and race/ethnicity. Its findings show that non-Hispanic Black, Asian American/Pacific Islander, Native American, and Hispanic women have a higher percentage of invasive breast cancers at younger ages and at more advanced stages and a higher percentage of breast cancer deaths at younger ages than non-Hispanic White women.

Breast Cancer Mortality Rates Have Stopped Declining in U.S. Women Younger than 40 Years.

Background National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) data for U.S. women have shown a steady decline in breast cancer mortality rates since 1989. Purpose To analyze U.S. breast cancer mortality rates by age decade in women aged 20-79 years and in women aged 20-39 years and women aged 40-69 years. Materials and Methods The authors conducted a retrospective analysis of (a) female breast cancer mortality rates from NCHS data for 1969-2017 for all races and by race and (b) age- and delay-adjusted invasive breast cancer incidence rates from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program. Joinpoint analysis was used to determine trends in breast cancer mortality, invasive breast cancer incidence, and distant-stage (metastatic) breast cancer incidence rates. Results Between 1989 and 2010, breast cancer mortality rates decreased by 1.5%-3.4% per year for each age decade from 20 to 79 years (P < .001 for each). After 2010, breast cancer mortality rates continued to decline by 1.2%-2.2% per year in women in each age decade from 40 to 79 years (P < .001 for each) but stopped declining in women younger than 40 years. After 2010, breast cancer mortality rates demonstrated nonsignificant increases of 2.8% per year in women aged 20-29 years (P = .11) and 0.3% per year in women aged 30-39 years (P = .70), results attributable primarily to changes in mortality rates in White women. A contributing factor is that distant-stage breast cancer incidence rates increased by more than 4% per year after the year 2000 in women aged 20-39 years. Conclusion Female breast cancer mortality rates have stopped declining in women younger than 40 years, ending a trend that existed from 1987 to 2010. Conversely, mortality rates have continued to decline in women aged 40-79 years. Rapidly rising distant-stage breast cancer rates have likely contributed to ending the decline in mortality rates in women younger than 40 years. © RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Recommendations for prioritization, treatment, and triage of breast cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. the COVID-19 pandemic breast cancer consortium.

The COVID-19 pandemic presents clinicians a unique set of challenges in managing breast cancer (BC) patients. As hospital resources and staff become more limited during the COVID-19 pandemic, it becomes critically important to define which BC patients require more urgent care and which patients can wait for treatment until the pandemic is over. In this Special Communication, we use expert opinion of representatives from multiple cancer care organizations to categorize BC patients into priority levels (A, B, C) for urgency of care across all specialties. Additionally, we provide treatment recommendations for each of these patient scenarios. Priority A patients have conditions that are immediately life threatening or symptomatic requiring urgent treatment. Priority B patients have conditions that do not require immediate treatment but should start treatment before the pandemic is over. Priority C patients have conditions that can be safely deferred until the pandemic is over. The implementation of these recommendations for patient triage, which are based on the highest level available evidence, must be adapted to current availability of hospital resources and severity of the COVID-19 pandemic in each region of the country. Additionally, the risk of disease progression and worse outcomes for patients need to be weighed against the risk of patient and staff exposure to SARS CoV-2 (virus associated with the COVID-19 pandemic). Physicians should use these recommendations to prioritize care for their BC patients and adapt treatment recommendations to the local context at their hospital.

Screening Guidelines Update for Average-Risk and High-Risk Women.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study is to describe screening updates for women with average and high risk for breast cancer, compare different screening strategies, and describe new approaches in risk prediction, including radiomics. CONCLUSION. All women are at substantial risk for breast cancer. For women with average risk, annual mammography beginning at 40 years old maximizes the life-extending benefits and provides improved treatment options. Women at higher risk need earlier and more intense screening. Delaying initiation or decreasing frequency of mammographic screening adversely affects breast cancer detection.

Current Issues in the Overdiagnosis and Overtreatment of Breast Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The discovery of breast cancer at earlier stages with screening brings the risk that some cancers will be overdiagnosed or overtreated. Reasonable estimates show the overdiagnosis rate due to screening mammography to be low, 1-10%. CONCLUSION: Overdiagnosis should not be used as a reason to delay the onset or decrease the frequency of screening, because neither strategy will decrease overdiagnosis. Improvements in personalized treatment will diminish the morbidity of treatment and, therefore, the significance of overdiagnosis.

Harmonizing Breast Cancer Screening Recommendations: Metrics and Accountability.

OBJECTIVE: The purposes of this article are to summarize breast cancer screening recommendations and discuss their differences and similarities and to explain the differences between two national databases to aid in interpretation of their benchmarks. CONCLUSION: The American College of Radiology, American Cancer Society, and U.S. Preventive Services Task Force all agree that annual mammography beginning at age 40 saves the most lives, and all acknowledge a woman's right to choose when to begin and stop screening. The National Mammography Database (NMD) differs from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium database in that it acquires data using the same approach used by almost all mammography facilities in the United States. Therefore, NMD benchmarks, which include standard metrics, provide more meaningful comparisons to help mammography facilities and radiologists improve performance.

Six-Month Short-Interval Imaging Follow-Up for Benign Concordant Core Needle Biopsy of the Breast: Outcomes in 1444 Cases With Long-Term Follow-Up.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to assess whether 6-month imaging follow-up after benign core needle breast biopsy is important for patient outcomes and whether it depends on nonspecific versus definitive benign biopsy results. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Consecutive breast biopsies from 2003 to 2010 were analyzed. Benign concordant lesions with at least 2 years of follow-up were assessed. Pathologic abnormalities were further characterized as having definitive or nonspecific features. A two-tailed Fisher exact test was used to assess the difference in pathologic features among lesions that had progressed. RESULTS: Of 3256 cases, 1705 biopsies in 1602 women were benign concordant and were recommended for 6-month imaging follow-up; the compliance rate was 94.9%. Of these, 1444 biopsies were confirmed as benign with long-term follow-up or excision. At pathologic analysis, 805 (55.7%) benign lesions had definitive features and 639 (44.3%) had nonspecific features. Thirty-four (2.4%) lesions progressed; this was similar for the lesions with definitive (2.6%) and nonspecific (2.0%) features (p = 0.60). The false-negative rate was 0.18%, with a mean of 5.0 cores sampled per lesion. CONCLUSION: For lesions with benign concordant biopsy results, selection of the follow-up interval should not be dictated by whether the pathologic features are definitive or nonspecific. The number of lesions that progress at imaging follow-up is low. The false-negative rate is low, regardless of modality or lesion type. A low false-negative rate is achievable with a reasonable number of core samples. The 6-month follow-up interval benefits only a small number of patients. Our results suggest that routine imaging after core needle biopsy is safe.

USPSTF Recommendations and Overdiagnosis.

Overdiagnosis is the concept that some cancers detected at screening would never have become clinically apparent during a woman's lifetime in the absence of screening. This could occur if a woman dies of a cause other than breast cancer in the interval between mammographic detection and clinical detection (obligate overdiagnosis) or if a mammographically detected breast cancer fails to progress to clinical presentation. Overdiagnosis cannot be measured directly. Indirect methods of estimating overdiagnosis include use of data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) designed to evaluate breast cancer mortality, population-based screening studies, or modeling. In each case, estimates of overdiagnosis must consider lead time, breast cancer incidence trends in the absence of screening, and accurate and predictable rates of tumor progression. Failure to do so has led to widely varying estimates of overdiagnosis. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) considers overdiagnosis a major harm of mammography screening. Their 2024 report estimated overdiagnosis using summary evaluations of 3 RCTs that did not provide screening to their control groups at the end of the screening period, along with Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Network modeling. However, there are major flaws in their evidence sources and modeling estimates, limiting the USPSTF assessment. The most plausible estimates remain those based on observational studies that suggest overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening is 10% or less and can be attributed primarily to obligate overdiagnosis and nonprogressive ductal carcinoma in situ.

Mammography Screening Should Begin at Age 40 Years.

The 2023 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force draft recommendation statement on screening for breast cancer recommends lowering the starting age for biennial screening with mammography to age 40 years from 50 years, the age of screening initiation that the Task Force had previously recommended since 2009. A recent Perspective article in the New England Journal of Medicine by Woloshin et al contends that this change will provide no additional benefit and is unjustified. This article reviews the main ideas presented by Woloshin et al and provides substantial evidence not considered by those authors in support of screening mammography in U.S. women starting at age 40 years.

Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: A Decade of Practice in Review.

Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), introduced in 2011, was thought to be a further evolution of full-field digital mammography (DM). Assessing DBT presents unique challenges. The widely variable settings in which DBT has been applied affect outcomes. In initial studies comparing DM-DBT with DM, outcomes for cancer detection rates (CDRs) and recall rates have been mixed. CDR improves most in biennial screening settings, with little or no improvement in annual screening. Recall rates improve most where rates are highest; no improvement is seen in European prospective trials. Adoption of synthesized mammography (SM), derived from the tomosynthesis acquisition and intended to avoid the DM exposure, has been slow because of inferior image quality. Despite this, SM-DBT has shown equivalent outcomes measures to DM-DBT. An important exception is the To-Be randomized controlled trial, which showed that SM-DBT was equivalent to DM in CDR, not better. To date, interval cancer rate, a surrogate for mortality reduction, has not been shown to be improved by DBT. We may have reached the limit of morphological assessment in x-ray technique. Its use may evolve with advancements in technology as use of contrast agents expands, algorithms for SM progress, and tomosynthesis-guided biopsy proliferates. Our expectations of the contributions of DBT will evolve as well.

Cryoablation Therapy for Early-Stage Breast Cancer: Evidence and Rationale.

Recent advances in breast cancer research and treatment propel a paradigm shift toward less aggressive and less invasive treatment for some early-stage breast cancer. Select patients with small, low-risk tumors may benefit from a less aggressive approach with de-escalated local therapy. Cryoablation of breast cancer is an emerging nonsurgical treatment alternative to breast-conserving surgery. Advantages of cryoablation over surgery include the use of local anesthesia, faster recovery, improved cosmesis, and cost savings. Proper patient selection and meticulous technique are keys to achieving successful clinical outcomes. The best candidates for cryoablation have unifocal invasive ductal carcinoma tumors that are low grade, hormone receptor positive, and ≤1.5 cm in size. In this review, we outline the current evidence, patient selection criteria, procedural technique, pre- and postablation imaging, and the advantages and limitations of cryoablation therapy.

Breast Cancer Screening for Women at Higher-Than-Average Risk: Updated Recommendations From the ACR.

Early detection decreases breast cancer death. The ACR recommends annual screening beginning at age 40 for women of average risk and earlier and/or more intensive screening for women at higher-than-average risk. For most women at higher-than-average risk, the supplemental screening method of choice is breast MRI. Women with genetics-based increased risk, those with a calculated lifetime risk of 20% or more, and those exposed to chest radiation at young ages are recommended to undergo MRI surveillance starting at ages 25 to 30 and annual mammography (with a variable starting age between 25 and 40, depending on the type of risk). Mutation carriers can delay mammographic screening until age 40 if annual screening breast MRI is performed as recommended. Women diagnosed with breast cancer before age 50 or with personal histories of breast cancer and dense breasts should undergo annual supplemental breast MRI. Others with personal histories, and those with atypia at biopsy, should strongly consider MRI screening, especially if other risk factors are present. For women with dense breasts who desire supplemental screening, breast MRI is recommended. For those who qualify for but cannot undergo breast MRI, contrast-enhanced mammography or ultrasound could be considered. All women should undergo risk assessment by age 25, especially Black women and women of Ashkenazi Jewish heritage, so that those at higher-than-average risk can be identified and appropriate screening initiated.

Postbiopsy confirmation of MR-detected lesions biopsied using ultrasound.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to outline a quick and effective method of confirming MR-sonographic correlation for lesions detected with MRI but percutaneously biopsied using ultrasound. CONCLUSION: Ensuring that a lesion seen on targeted ultrasound is the same as that detected at MRI can be difficult. For benign concordant lesions, a mismatch may only be discovered at 6-month postbiopsy MRI follow-up. However, lesion correlation can be established on the same day as biopsy by obtaining a single unenhanced T1-weighted non-fat-saturated pulse sequence just after percutaneous ultrasound-guided biopsy. Scanning time is less than 4 minutes. Postbiopsy changes and the biopsy clip are easily seen and help verify MR-sonographic lesion correlation.

Breast conserving therapy with accelerated partial breast versus external beam whole breast irradiation: comparison of imaging sequela and complications in a matched population.

Our purpose was to evaluate and compare the imaging sequela and complications of accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) with those occurring in patients treated with standard external beam therapy. Patient selection included those who met the criteria for possible ABPI: age 45 or older; cancer stage T1N0M0 or ductal carcinoma in situ 3 cm or less, and negative surgical margins. One hundred and ninety seven had complete records and films available for review. Ninety-seven (49%) were treated with APBI (MammoSite) and 100(51%) were treated with external beam. Image findings for APBI versus external beam were: distortion 90(93%) versus 83(83%), seroma 67(69%) versus 7(7%), skin edema 52(54%) versus 47(47%), increased stroma 75(77%) versus 66(66%), calcifications 10(10%) versus 6(6%), and fat necrosis 12(12%) versus 6(6%). For APBI, skin and stromal edema was more commonly focal. At imaging, the seroma rate was statistically and significantly different between the two treatment modes (p < 0.0001). For patients treated with APBI, seroma formation was not related to balloon size and only weakly related to lumpectomy cavity size. The complication rate was significantly higher for those treated with APBI (36 versus 20%) and the types and treatment of complications differed. There were three recurrences among the APBI group and none among those treated with external beam radiation.

Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast for cancer diagnosis and staging.

Gadolinium-enhanced breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is optimally suited for the diagnosis and assessment of breast cancer. The complete breast MRI examination, which includes select nonenhanced sequences, yields abundant information about the nature and stage of disease. In this article, we will explore cancer diagnosis by examining the main imaging features of breast malignancy as well as the assessment of surrounding structures. We will then discuss current ideas in the use of breast MRI in breast cancer, including high-risk screening, evaluation of extent of disease, role in surgical planning, and the use of MRI in the patient receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Breast MRI plays an important role in the assessment of patients with breast malignancy-a role that is yet to be fully defined and used. By understanding the strengths and weakness of this imaging method in cancer evaluation, we hope to highlight the appropriate uses of the technique.

Breast Cancer Screening Recommendations Inclusive of All Women at Average Risk: Update from the ACR and Society of Breast Imaging.

Breast cancer remains the most common nonskin cancer, the second leading cause of cancer deaths, and the leading cause of premature death in US women. Mammography screening has been proven effective in reducing breast cancer deaths in women age 40 years and older. A mortality reduction of 40% is possible with regular screening. Treatment advances cannot overcome the disadvantage of being diagnosed with an advanced-stage tumor. The ACR and Society of Breast Imaging recommend annual mammography screening beginning at age 40, which provides the greatest mortality reduction, diagnosis at earlier stage, better surgical options, and more effective chemotherapy. Annual screening results in more screening-detected tumors, tumors of smaller sizes, and fewer interval cancers than longer screening intervals. Screened women in their 40s are more likely to have early-stage disease, negative lymph nodes, and smaller tumors than unscreened women. Delaying screening until age 45 or 50 will result in an unnecessary loss of life to breast cancer and adversely affects minority women in particular. Screening should continue past age 74 years, without an upper age limit unless severe comorbidities limit life expectancy. Benefits of screening should be considered along with the possibilities of recall for additional imaging and benign biopsy and the less tangible risks of anxiety and overdiagnosis. Although recall and biopsy recommendations are higher with more frequent screening, so are life-years gained and breast cancer deaths averted. Women who wish to maximize benefit will choose annual screening starting at age 40 years and will not stop screening prematurely.

2020 ACR Presidential Address: Quality, Ownership, and Our Role as Physicians.

A story from long ago reminds us of the importance of quality in our practices, of taking ownership of our patients, and of our role as physicians. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has disrupted our practices. Before the pandemic, many practices were stretched thin by the amount of work that needed to be done. The work stoppage in many locations brought an unwelcome pause but gives us time to reflect on our practices. How can we maintain quality when high volumes return? The role of artificial intelligence, and our role in its development, needs to be considered. At the same time, we need to take more ownership of the patient and be more help to our referring providers. Our own ACR staff are great examples of taking ownership. Finally, we must recognize that patients and their families are important for optimal patient care. Making that connection is significant. Let us start where we began-in the service of our patients as their physicians. This role is rewarding and, together with a focus on quality and taking ownership, can lead to successful practices that are good for everyone, including ourselves.

Current Guidelines and Gaps in Breast Cancer Screening.

Breast cancer is the most common nonskin cancer in women and the second leading cause of cancer death for women in the United States. Mammography screening is proven to significantly decrease breast cancer mortality, with a 40% or more reduction expected with annual use starting at age 40 for women of average risk. However, less than half of all eligible women have a mammogram annually. The elimination of cost sharing for screening made possible by the Affordable Care Act (2010) encouraged screening but mainly for those already insured. The United States Preventive Services Task Force 2009 guidelines recommended against screening those 40 to 49 years old and have left women over 74 years of age vulnerable to coverage loss. Other populations for whom significant gaps in risk information or screening use exist, including women of lower socioeconomic status, black women, men at higher than average risk of breast cancer, and sexual and gender minorities. Further work is needed to achieve higher rates of screening acceptance for all appropriate individuals so that the full mortality and treatment benefits of mammography screening can be realized.