Screening mammographic performance by race and age in the National Mammography Database: 29,479,665 screening mammograms from 13,181,241 women.

PURPOSE: There are insufficient large-scale studies comparing the performance of screening mammography in women of different races. This study aims to compare the screening performance metrics across racial and age groups in the National Mammography Database (NMD). METHODS: All screening mammograms performed between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2021, in women aged 30-100 years from 746 mammography facilities in 46 U.S. states in the NMD were included. Patients were stratified by 10-year age intervals and 5 racial groups (African American, American Indian, Asian, White, unknown). Incidence of risk factors (breast density, personal history, family history of breast cancer, age), and time since prior exams were compared. Five screening mammography metrics were calculated: recall rate (RR), cancer detection rate (CDR), positive predictive values for recalls (PPV1), biopsy recommended (PPV2) and biopsy performed (PPV3). RESULTS: 29,479,655 screening mammograms performed in 13,181,241 women between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2021, from the NMD were analyzed. The overall mean performance metrics were RR 10.00% (95% CI 9.99-10.02), CDR 4.18/1000 (4.16-4.21), PPV1 4.18% (4.16-4.20), PPV2 25.84% (25.72-25.97), PPV3 25.78% (25.66-25.91). With advancing age, RR significantly decreases, while CDR, PPV1, PPV2, and PPV3 significantly increase. Incidence of personal/family history of breast cancer, breast density, age, prior mammogram availability, and time since prior mammogram were mostly similar across all races. Compared to White women, African American women had significantly higher RR, but lower CDR, PPV1, PPV2 and PPV3. CONCLUSIONS: Benefits of screening mammography increase with age, including for women age > 70 and across all races. Screening mammography is effective; with lower RR and higher CDR, PPV2, and PPV3 with advancing age. African American women have poorer outcomes from screening mammography (higher RR and lower CDR), compared to White and all women in the NMD. Racial disparity can be partly explained by higher rate of African American women lost to follow up.

Performance measures of 8,169,869 examinations in the National Breast Cancer Screening Program in Taiwan, 2004-2020.

BACKGROUND: The benefits of mammographic screening have been shown to include a decrease in mortality due to breast cancer. Taiwan's Breast Cancer Screening Program is a national screening program that has offered biennial mammographic breast cancer screening for women aged 50-69 years since 2004 and for those aged 45-69 years since 2009, with the implementation of mobile units in 2010. The purpose of this study was to compare the performance results of the program with changes in the previous (2004-2009) and latter (2010-2020) periods. METHODS: A cohort of 3,665,078 women who underwent biennial breast cancer mammography screenings from 2004 to 2020 was conducted, and data were obtained from the Health Promotion Administration, Ministry of Health and Welfare of Taiwan. We compared the participation of screened women and survival rates from breast cancer in the earlier and latter periods across national breast cancer screening programs. RESULTS: Among 3,665,078 women who underwent 8,169,869 examinations in the study population, the screened population increased from 3.9% in 2004 to 40% in 2019. The mean cancer detection rate was 4.76 and 4.08 cancers per 1000 screening mammograms in the earlier (2004-2009) and latter (2010-2020) periods, respectively. The 10-year survival rate increased from 89.68% in the early period to 97.33% in the latter period. The mean recall rate was 9.90% (95% CI: 9.83-9.97%) in the early period and decreased to 8.15% (95%CI, 8.13-8.17%) in the latter period. CONCLUSIONS: The evolution of breast cancer screening in Taiwan has yielded favorable outcomes by increasing the screening population, increasing the 10-year survival rate, and reducing the recall rate through the participation of young women, the implementation of a mobile unit service and quality assurance program, thereby providing historical evidence to policy makers to plan future needs.

Women 75 Years Old or Older: To Screen or Not to Screen?

Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women, with the incidence rising substantially with age. Older women are a vulnerable population at increased risk of developing and dying from breast cancer. However, women aged 75 years and older were excluded from all randomized controlled screening trials, so the best available data regarding screening benefits and risks in this age group are from observational studies and modeling predictions. Benefits of screening in older women are the same as those in younger women: early detection of smaller lower-stage cancers, resulting in less invasive treatment and lower morbidity and mortality. Mammography performs significantly better in older women with higher sensitivity, specificity, cancer detection rate, and positive predictive values, accompanied by lower recall rates and false positives. The overdiagnosis rate is low, with benefits outweighing risks until age 90 years. Although there are conflicting national and international guidelines about whether to continue screening mammography in women beyond age 74 years, clinicians can use shared decision making to help women make decisions about screening and fully engage them in the screening process. For women aged 75 years and older in good health, continuing annual screening mammography will save the most lives. An informed discussion of the benefits and risks of screening mammography in older women needs to include each woman's individual values, overall health status, and comorbidities. This article will review the benefits, risks, and controversies surrounding screening mammography in women 75 years old and older and compare the current recommendations for screening this population from national and international professional organizations. ©RSNA, 2023 Quiz questions for this article are available through the Online Learning Center.

Cancer Yield Exceeds 2% for BI-RADS 3 Probably Benign Findings in Women Older Than 60 Years in the National Mammography Database.

Background Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category 3 (BR3) (probably benign) mammographic assessments are reserved for imaging findings known to have likelihood of malignancy of 2% or less. Purpose To determine the effect of age, finding type, and prior mammography on cancer yield for BR3 findings in the National Mammography Database (NMD). Materials and Methods This HIPAA-compliant retrospective cohort institutional review board-exempt study evaluated women recalled from screening mammography followed by BR3 assessment at diagnostic evaluation from January 2009 to March 2018 and from 471 NMD facilities. Only the first BR3 occurrence was included for women with biopsy or imaging follow-up of at least 2 years. Women with a history of breast cancer or who underwent biopsy at time of initial BR3 assessment were excluded. Women were stratified by age in 10-year intervals. Cancer yield was calculated for each age group, with (for presumed new findings) and without prior mammographic comparison, and by lesion type, where available. Linear regression with weighted-age binning was performed to assess for differences between groups; P < .05 was indicative of a significant difference. Results A total of 1 380 652 (18.2%) women were recalled after screening mammography, of whom 157 130 (11.4%) were given a BR3 assessment within 90 days after screening. Of these, 43 628 women (median age, 55 years; age range, 25-90 years) had adequate follow-up for analysis. Cancer yield increased with increasing age decile, ranging from 0.51% (six of 1167) in women aged 30-39 years to 4.63% (41 of 885) in women aged 80-90 years; cancer yield exceeded 2% at and after age 59.7 years for baseline findings and at and after age 53.6 years for presumed new findings, although there was no effect on stage distribution. Cancer yield for baseline BR3 masses was 10 of 2111 (0.47% [95% CI: 0.24, 0.90]) versus 47 of 3003 (1.57% [95% CI: 1.16, 2.09]) with prior comparisons (P < .001); cancer yield for baseline calcifications was eight of 929 (0.86% [95% CI: 0.40, 1.76]) versus 84 of 2999 (2.80% [95% CI: 2.23, 3.47]) with prior comparisons (P < .001). Difference in cancer yield was 0.51% (95% CI: 0.16, 0.86) between women with and women without prior comparison at the same age (P = .006). Conclusion Cancer yield exceeded the 2% threshold for women aged 60 years or older and reached 4.6% for women aged 80-89 years. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System 3 findings in women with a prior comparison had higher cancer yield than in those without a prior comparison at the same age. © RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Radiologist Characteristics Associated with Interpretive Performance of Screening Mammography: A National Mammography Database (NMD) Study.

Background Factors affecting radiologists' performance in screening mammography interpretation remain poorly understood. Purpose To identify radiologists characteristics that affect screening mammography interpretation performance. Materials and Methods This retrospective study included 1223 radiologists in the National Mammography Database (NMD) from 2008 to 2019 who could be linked to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) datasets. NMD screening performance metrics were extracted. Acceptable ranges were defined as follows: recall rate (RR) between 5% and 12%; cancer detection rate (CDR) of at least 2.5 per 1000 screening examinations; positive predictive value of recall (PPV1) between 3% and 8%; positive predictive value of biopsies recommended (PPV2) between 20% and 40%; positive predictive value of biopsies performed (PPV3) between the 25th and 75th percentile of study sample; invasive CDR of at least the 25th percentile of the study sample; and percentage of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of at least the 25th percentile of the study sample. Radiologist characteristics extracted from CMS datasets included demographics, subspecialization, and clinical practice patterns. Multivariable stepwise logistic regression models were performed to identify characteristics independently associated with acceptable performance for the seven metrics. The most influential characteristics were defined as those independently associated with the majority of the metrics (at least four). Results Relative to radiologists practicing in the Northeast, those in the Midwest were more likely to achieve acceptable RR, PPV1, PPV2, and CDR (odds ratio [OR], 1.4-2.5); those practicing in the West were more likely to achieve acceptable RR, PPV2, and PPV3 (OR, 1.7-2.1) but less likely to achieve acceptable invasive CDR (OR, 0.6). Relative to general radiologists, breast imagers were more likely to achieve acceptable PPV1, invasive CDR, percentage DCIS, and CDR (OR, 1.4-4.4). Those performing diagnostic mammography were more likely to achieve acceptable PPV1, PPV2, PPV3, invasive CDR, and CDR (OR, 1.9-2.9). Those performing breast US were less likely to achieve acceptable PPV1, PPV2, percentage DCIS, and CDR (OR, 0.5-0.7). Conclusion The geographic location of the radiology practice, subspecialization in breast imaging, and performance of diagnostic mammography are associated with better screening mammography performance; performance of breast US is associated with lower performance. ©RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Cancer Yield and Patterns of Follow-up for BI-RADS Category 3 after Screening Mammography Recall in the National Mammography Database.

Background The literature supports the use of short-interval follow-up as an alternative to biopsy for lesions assessed as probably benign, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category 3, with an expected malignancy rate of less than 2%. Purpose To assess outcomes from 6-, 12-, and 24-month follow-up of probably benign findings first identified at recall from screening mammography in the National Mammography Database (NMD). Materials and Methods This retrospective study included women recalled from screening mammography with BI-RADS category 3 assessment at additional evaluation from January 2009 through March 2018 from 471 NMD facilities. Only the first BI-RADS category 3 occurrence for women aged 25 years or older with no personal history of breast cancer was analyzed, with biopsy or 2-year imaging follow-up. Cancer yield and positive predictive value of biopsies performed (PPV3) were determined at each follow-up. Results Among 45 202 women (median age, 55 years; range, 25-90 years) with a BI-RADS category 3 lesion, 1574 (3.5%) underwent biopsy at the time of lesion detection, yielding 72 cancers (cancer yield, 4.6%; 72 of 1574 women). For the remaining 43 628 women who accepted surveillance, 922 were seen within 90 days (with 78 lesions biopsied and 12 [15%] classified as malignant). The women still in surveillance (31 465 of 43 381 women [72.5%]) underwent follow-up mammography at 6 months. Of 3001 (9.5%) lesions biopsied, 456 (15.2%) were malignant (cancer yield, 1.5%; 456 of 31 465 women; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.3%, 1.6%). Among 18 748 of 25 997 women (72.1%) in surveillance who underwent follow-up at 12 months, 1219 (6.5%) underwent biopsy with 230 (18.9%) malignant lesions found (cancer yield, 1.2%; 230 of 18 748 women; 95% CI: 1.1%, 1.4%). Through 2-year follow-up, the biopsy rate was 11.2% (4894 of 43 628 women) with a cancer yield of 1.86% (810 malignancies found among 43 628 women; 95% CI: 1.73%, 1.98%) and a PPV3 of 16.6% (810 malignancies found among 4894 women). Conclusion In the National Mammography Database, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category 3 use is appropriate, with 1.86% cumulative cancer yield through 2-year follow-up. Of 810 malignancies, 468 (57.8%) were diagnosed at or before 6 months, validating necessity of short-interval follow-up of mammographic BI-RADS category 3 findings. © RSNA, 2020 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Moy in this issue.

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 Status and Future Wish List of Peer Review: A National Questionnaire of U.S. Radiologists.

OBJECTIVE. Most peer review programs focus on error detection, numeric scoring, and radiologist-specific error rates. The effectiveness of this method on learning and systematic improvement is uncertain at best. Radiologists have been pushing for a transition from an individually punitive peer review system to a peer-learning model. This national questionnaire of U.S. radiologists aims to assess the current status of peer review and opportunities for improvement. MATERIALS AND METHODS. A 21-question multiple-choice questionnaire was developed and face validity assessed by the ARRS Performance Quality Improvement subcommittee. The questionnaire was e-mailed to 17,695 ARRS members and open for 4 weeks; two e-mail reminders were sent. Response collection was anonymous. Only responses from board-certified, practicing radiologists participating in peer review were analyzed. RESULTS. The response rate was 4.2% (742/17,695), and 73.7% (547/742) met inclusion criteria. Most responders were in private practice (51.7%, 283/547) with a group size of 11-50 radiologists (50.5%) and in an urban setting (61.6%). Significant diversity was noted in peer review systems, with RADPEER used by less than half (45.0%) and cases selected most commonly by commercial software (36.2%) or manually (31.2%). There was no consensus on the number of required peer reviews per month (10-20 cases, 32.1%; > 20 cases, 29.1%; < 10 cases, 21.7%). Less than half (43.7%) did not use peer review for group education. Whereas most (67.7%) were notified of their peer review results individually, 21.5% were not notified at all. Around half were dissatisfied (44.5%) because of insufficient learning (94.0%) and inaccurate representation of their performance improvement (75.5%). Overall, the group discrepancy rates were unknown to most radiologists who participate in peer review (54.3%). Submission bias was the main reason for underreporting of serious discrepancies (49.0%). Most found four peer-learning methods feasible in daily practice: incidental observation, 65.1%; focused practice review, 52.9%; professional auditing, 45.8%; and blinded double reading, 35.4%. CONCLUSION. More than half of participants reported that peer review data are used for educational purposes. However, significant diversity remains in current peer review practice with no agreement on number of required reviews, method of case selection, and oversight of results. Nearly half of the radiologists reported insufficient learning, although most feel a better system would be feasible in daily practice.

Risk Stratification for Screening Mammography: Benefits and Harms.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to compare commonly used breast cancer risk assessment models, describe the machine learning approach and big data in risk prediction, and summarize the potential benefits and harms of restrictive risk-based screening. CONCLUSION: The commonly used risk assessment models for breast cancer can be complex and cumbersome to use. Each model incorporates different sets of risk factors, which are weighted differently and can produce different results for the same patient. No model is appropriate for all subgroups of the general population and only one model incorporates mammographic breast density. Future development of risk prediction tools that are generalizable and simpler to use are needed in guiding clinical decisions.

Assessing the Recall Rate for Screening Mammography: Comparing the Medicare Hospital Compare Dataset With the National Mammography Database.

OBJECTIVE: High-quality screening mammography has been shown to substantially reduce mortality from breast cancer. Recall rate is a principal performance metric for screening mammography because it directly relates to the rate of false-positive examinations. This study aims to compare the recall rate derived using two sources-the claims-based Hospital Compare (HC) dataset from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services versus the National Mammography Database (NMD) from the American College of Radiology-to understand the implications in pay-for-performance and quality improvement activities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study retrospectively compared the recall rate reported by NMD facilities with that reported in the HC dataset. Site matching was performed by facility name and zip code, followed by manual verification. Scatterplots, correlations, a paired t test, and Bland-Altman analysis were performed to assess association between the two measures. RESULTS: During the period from October 1 to December 1, 2016, 92 facilities were unambiguously matched using 2014-2015 records in both datasets. The recall rates were positively correlated (r = 0.428, p < 0.001), but the mean HC recall rate (8.5% ± 2.86% [SD]) was significantly (p < 0.001) lower than the mean NMD recall rate (10.6% ± 3.90%). CONCLUSION: The NMD and HC are two commonly used datasets for measuring screening mammography recall rate. Although recall rates are correlated at the individual facility level, there are important differences that have implications for quality improvement and pay-for-performance.

Screening for Breast Cancer in Women Age 75 Years and Older.

OBJECTIVE: Older women undergoing regular mammography experience significant reductions in breast cancer mortality, except in women with severe comorbidities or limited life expectancy. Optimizing screening strategies requires informed discussions of benefits and risks given each woman's health status. CONCLUSION: This article will review the benefits and risks of screening mammography in women older than 75 years within the context of life expectancy and comorbidities and summarize the current recommendations from professional organizations for screening mammography in older women.

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.

Variability of Postsurgical Imaging Surveillance of Breast Cancer Patients: A Nationwide Survey Study.

OBJECTIVE: Because of observed clinical variance and the discretion of referring physicians and radiologists in patient follow-up, the purpose of this study was to conduct a survey to explore whether broad discrepancy exists in imaging protocols used for postsurgical surveillance. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: An online survey was created to assess radiologists' use of diagnostic versus screening mammography for women with a personal history of breast cancer and determine whether the choice of protocol was associated with practice characteristics (setting, region, and reader type). RESULTS: Of 8170 surveys sent, 849 (10%) completed responses were returned. Seventy-nine percent of respondents recommended initial diagnostic mammography after lumpectomy (65% at 6 months, 14% at 12 months); 49% recommended diagnostic surveillance for up to 2 years before a return to screening mammography; and 33% continued diagnostic surveillance for 2-5 years before returning to screening. For imaging after mastectomy, 57% of respondents recommended diagnostic mammography of the unaffected breast. Among the 57%, however, 37% recommended diagnostic screening for only the first postmastectomy follow-up evaluation, and the other 20% permanently designated patients for diagnostic mammography after mastectomy. CONCLUSION: The optimal surveillance mammography regimen must be better defined. This preliminary study showed variability in diagnostic versus screening surveillance mammography for women with a history of breast cancer. Future studies should evaluate why these variations occur and how to standardize recommendations to tailor personalized imaging.

The National Mammography Database: Preliminary Data.

OBJECTIVE: The purposes of our study were to analyze screening mammography data submitted to the National Mammography Database (NMD) since its inception to confirm data collection feasibility, to draw parallels to data from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC), and to examine trends over time. We also retrospectively evaluated practice-level variation in terms of practice type, practice setting, census region, and annual volume. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from 90 mammography facilities in the NMD registry were analyzed. The registry receives mammography data collected as part of standard clinical practice, including self-reported demographic information, clinical findings, screening mammography interpretation, and biopsy results. Outcome metrics calculated were cancer detection rate, recall rate, and positive predictive values for biopsy recommended (PPV2) and biopsy performed (PPV3). RESULTS: The NMD successfully collected and analyzed data for 3,181,437 screening mammograms performed between January 2008 and December 2012. Mean values for outcomes were cancer detection rate of 3.43 per 1000 (95% CI, 3.2-3.7), recall rate of 10% (95% CI, 9.3-10.7%), PPV2 of 18.5% (95% CI, 16.7-20.2%), and PPV3 of 29.2% (95% CI, 26.2-32.3%). No statistically significant difference was seen in performance measurements on the basis of practice type, practice setting, census region, or annual volume. NMD performance measurements parallel those reported by the BCSC. CONCLUSION: The NMD has become the fastest growing mammography registry in the United States, providing nationwide performance metrics and permitting comparison with published benchmarks. Our study shows the feasibility of using the NMD to audit mammography facilities and to provide current, ongoing benchmark data.

Diagnostic accuracy of sentinel node identification is maintained with the addition of local lidocaine and subareolar radioactive colloid injection.

Preoperative sentinel node localization (SNL) using a subareolar injection of radiotracer technetium-99m-sulfur colloid (Tc(99m)SC) is associated with significant pain. Lidocaine use during SNL is not widely adopted partly due to a concern that it can obscure sentinel node identification and reduce its diagnostic accuracy. We prospectively identified women with a biopsy-proven infiltrating breast cancer who were awaiting a SNL. The women completed the McGill pain questionnaire, Visual Analog Scale, and Wong-Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale prior to and following SNL. We identified a retrospective cohort of women with similar demographic and tumor characteristics who did not receive lidocaine before SNL. We compared sentinel lymph node identification rates in the two cohorts. We used Wilcoxon rank sum tests to compare continuous measures and Fisher's exact test for categorical measures. Between January 2011 to July 2012, 110 women consented, and 105 were eligible for and received lidocaine prior to Tc(99m)SC injection. The post-lidocaine identification rate of SNL was 95 % with Tc(99m)SC, and 100 % with the addition of intraoperative methylene blue dye/saline. Pain range prior to and following the SNL was unchanged (P = 0.703). We identified 187 women from 2005 to 2009 who did not receive lidocaine during preoperative SNL. There was no significant difference in the success rate of SNL, with or without lidocaine (P = 0.194). The administration of lidocaine during SNL prevents pain related to isotope injection while maintaining the success rate. We have changed our practice at our center to incorporate the use of lidocaine during all SNL.

Conducting a Successful Practice Quality Improvement Project for American Board of Radiology Certification.

Practice quality improvement (PQI) is a required component of the American Board of Radiology (ABR) Maintenance of Certification (MOC) cycle, with the goal to "improve the quality of health care through diplomate-initiated learning and quality improvement." The essential requirements of PQI projects include relevance to one's practice, achievability in one's clinical setting, results suited for repeat measurements during an ABR MOC cycle, and reasonable expectation to result in quality improvement (QI). PQI projects can be performed by a group or an individual or as part of a participating institution. Given the interdisciplinary nature of radiology, teamwork is critical to ensure patient safety and the success of PQI projects. Additionally, successful QI requires considerable investment of time and resources, coordination, organizational support, and individual engagement. Group PQI projects offer many advantages, especially in larger practices and for processes that cross organizational boundaries, whereas individual projects may be preferred in small practices or for focused projects. In addition to the three-phase "plan, do, study, act" model advocated by the ABR, there are several other improvement models, which are based on continuous data collection and rapid simultaneous testing of multiple interventions. When properly planned, supported, and executed, group PQI projects can improve the value and viability of a radiology practice.