Association Between False-Positive Results and Return to Screening Mammography in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium Cohort.

BACKGROUND: False-positive results on screening mammography may affect women's willingness to return for future screening. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between screening mammography results and the probability of subsequent screening. DESIGN: Cohort study. SETTING: 177 facilities participating in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC). PATIENTS: 3 529 825 screening mammograms (3 184 482 true negatives and 345 343 false positives) performed from 2005 to 2017 among 1 053 672 women aged 40 to 73 years without a breast cancer diagnosis. MEASUREMENTS: Mammography results (true-negative result or false-positive recall with a recommendation for immediate additional imaging only, short-interval follow-up, or biopsy) from 1 or 2 screening mammograms. Absolute differences in the probability of returning for screening within 9 to 30 months of false-positive versus true-negative screening results were estimated, adjusting for race, ethnicity, age, time since last mammogram, BCSC registry, and clustering within women and facilities. RESULTS: Women were more likely to return after a true-negative result (76.9% [95% CI, 75.1% to 78.6%]) than after a false-positive recall for additional imaging only (adjusted absolute difference, -1.9 percentage points [CI, -3.1 to -0.7 percentage points]), short-interval follow-up (-15.9 percentage points [CI, -19.7 to -12.0 percentage points]), or biopsy (-10.0 percentage points [CI, -14.2 to -5.9 percentage points]). Asian and Hispanic/Latinx women had the largest decreases in the probability of returning after a false positive with a recommendation for short-interval follow-up (-20 to -25 percentage points) or biopsy (-13 to -14 percentage points) versus a true negative. Among women with 2 screening mammograms within 5 years, a false-positive result on the second was associated with a decreased probability of returning for a third regardless of the first screening result. LIMITATION: Women could receive care at non-BCSC facilities. CONCLUSION: Women were less likely to return to screening after false-positive mammography results, especially with recommendations for short-interval follow-up or biopsy, raising concerns about continued participation in routine screening among these women at increased breast cancer risk. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Cancer Institute.

Trends in chemotherapy use for early-stage breast cancer from 2006 to 2019.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about how use of chemotherapy has evolved in breast cancer patients. We therefore describe chemotherapy patterns for women with stage I-IIIA breast cancer in the Optimal Breast Cancer Chemotherapy Dosing (OBCD) Study using data from KPNC (Kaiser Permanente Northern California) and KPWA (Kaiser Permanente Washington). FINDINGS: Among 33,670 women, aged 18 + y, diagnosed with primary stage I-IIIA breast cancer at KPNC and KPWA from 2006 to 2019, we explored patterns of intravenous chemotherapy use, defined here as receipt of intravenous cytotoxic drugs and/or anti-HER2 therapies. We evaluated trends in chemotherapy receipt, duration over which chemotherapy was received, and number of associated infusion visits. In secondary analyses, we stratified by receipt of anti-HER2 therapies (trastuzumab and/or pertuzumab), given their longer duration. 38.9% received chemotherapy intravenously, declining from 40.2% in 2006 to 35.6% in 2019 (p-trend < 0.001). Among 13,089 women receiving chemotherapy, neoadjuvant treatment increased (4.1-14.7%; p-trend < 0.001), as did receipt of anti-HER2 therapies (20.8-30.9%) (p-trend < 0.001). The average treatment duration increased (5.3 to 6.0 months; p-trend < 0.001), as did the number of infusion visits (10.8 to 12.5; p-trend < 0.001). For those receiving anti-HER2 therapies, treatment duration and average number of visits decreased; among those not receiving anti-HER2 therapies, number of visits increased, with no change in duration. CONCLUSIONS: While the prevalence of chemotherapy receipt has decreased over time, the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy has increased, as has use of anti-HER2 therapies; duration and number of administration visits have also increased. Understanding these trends is useful to inform clinical and administrative planning.

Patient characteristics associated with delayed time to adjuvant chemotherapy among women treated for stage I-IIIA breast cancer.

For patients with breast cancer, delays in chemotherapy initiation have been adversely associated with recurrence and survival. We evaluated patient-level factors associated with delayed chemotherapy initiation, from both diagnosis and surgery, in a community-based cohort of women with early-stage breast cancer. For the Optimal Breast Cancer Chemotherapy Dosing study, we identified a cohort of 34,109 women diagnosed with stage I-IIIA breast cancer at two U.S. integrated healthcare delivery systems between 2004 and 2019. We used logistic regression to calculate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) to identify patient factors associated with delays in chemotherapy initiation after diagnosis (≥90 days) and surgery (≥60 days). Among 10,968 women receiving adjuvant chemotherapy, 21.1% experienced delays in chemotherapy initiation after diagnosis and 21.3% after surgery. Older age, non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic race and ethnicity, and ER+ and/or PR+ disease were associated with increased likelihood of delays to chemotherapy initiation after diagnosis and surgery. People diagnosed in 2012-2019 (vs. 2005-2011), with a higher grade and larger tumor size were less likely to experience delays. Other factors were associated with a higher likelihood of delays specifically from diagnosis (earlier stage, mastectomy vs. breast-conserving surgery), or surgery (higher comorbidity, increased nodal number). Women diagnosed with breast cancer who were at highest risk of progression and recurrence were less likely to experience delays in chemotherapy initiation after diagnosis and surgery. Understanding reasons for chemotherapy delays beyond patient factors may be potentially important to reduce risk of breast cancer recurrence and progression.

Endocrine therapy initiation among women diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ from 2001 to 2018.

PURPOSE: Trials demonstrating benefits of tamoxifen for women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) were published > 20 years ago; yet subsequent uptake of endocrine therapy was low. We estimated endocrine therapy initiation in women with DCIS between 2001 and 2018 in a community setting, reflecting more recent years of diagnosis than previous studies. METHODS: This retrospective cohort included adult females ≥ 20 years diagnosed with first primary DCIS between 2001 and 2018, followed through 2019, and enrolled in one of three U.S. integrated healthcare systems. We collected data on endocrine therapy dispensings (tamoxifen, aromatase inhibitors [AIs]) from electronic pharmacy records within 12 months after DCIS diagnosis. Using generalized linear models with a log link and Poisson distribution, we estimated endocrine therapy initiation rates over time and by patient, tumor (including estrogen receptor [ER] status), and treatment characteristics. RESULTS: Among 2020 women with DCIS, 587 (29%) initiated endocrine therapy within 12 months after diagnosis (36% among 1208 women with ER-positive DCIS). Among women who used endocrine therapy, 506 (86%) initiated tamoxifen and 81 (14%) initiated AIs. Age-adjusted endocrine therapy initiation declined from 34 to 21% between 2001 and 2017; between 2015 and 2018, AI use increased from 8 to 35%. Women less likely to initiate endocrine therapy were ER-negative or had borderline/unknown or no ER test results, ≥ 65 years at diagnosis, Black, and received no radiotherapy. CONCLUSION: One-third of women diagnosed with DCIS initiated endocrine therapy, and use decreased over time. Understanding why women eligible for endocrine therapy do not initiate is important to maximizing disease-free survival following DCIS diagnosis.

The landscape of use of NCCN-guideline chemotherapy regimens in stage I-IIIA breast cancer in an integrated healthcare delivery system.

PURPOSE: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines recommend a variety of drug combinations with specific administration schedules for the treatment of early-stage breast cancer, allowing physicians to deliver treatments recognizing individual patient complexities, including comorbidities, and patient-physician preference. While use of guideline regimens has shifted over time, there is little data to describe changes in how treatment for early-stage breast cancer has evolved over time. METHODS: In a cohort of 34,109 women treated for stage I-IIIA breast cancer between 2006-2019 at Kaiser Permanente Northern California and Kaiser Permanente Washington, we present the changes in chemotherapy regimens over time, and explore use of NCCN-guideline regimens (GR), guideline regimens used when said regimens were not included in guidelines, referred to as time-discordant regimens (TDR), and non-guideline regimens (NGR). Results are presented by drug combination and over time. RESULTS: Among 12,506 women receiving chemotherapy, 77.4% (n = 9681) received GRs, 9.1% (n = 1140) received TDRs, and 13.5% (n = 1685) received NGRs. In 2006, AC-T (cyclophosphamide-doxorubicin, paclitaxel) was the most common regimen, with TC (cyclophosphamide-docetaxel) becoming the most prevalent by 2019. NGRs were more common in cyclophosphamide-methotrexate-5-fluorouracil (CMF); cyclophosphamide-doxorubicin-paclitaxel-trastuzumab (ACTH); and paclitaxel-trastuzumab (TH). The use of GR has increased over time (p-trend < 0.001), while use of NGR (both in terms of administration schedule and drug combination) and TDR have decreased, although patterns vary by drug combination. CONCLUSION: Chemotherapy delivery has changed markedly over time, with a move toward more use of GR. These data are important for understanding the landscape of chemotherapy delivery in community healthcare settings.

Development and evaluation of a method to assess breast cancer risk using a longitudinal history of mammographic density: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Women with dense breasts have an increased risk of breast cancer. However, breast density is measured with variability, which may reduce the reliability and accuracy of its association with breast cancer risk. This is particularly relevant when visually assessing breast density due to variation in inter- and intra-reader assessments. To address this issue, we developed a longitudinal breast density measure which uses an individual woman's entire history of mammographic density, and we evaluated its association with breast cancer risk as well as its predictive ability. METHODS: In total, 132,439 women, aged 40-73 yr, who were enrolled in Kaiser Permanente Washington and had multiple screening mammograms taken between 1996 and 2013 were followed up for invasive breast cancer through 2014. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) density was assessed at each screen. Continuous and derived categorical longitudinal density measures were developed using a linear mixed model that allowed for longitudinal density to be updated at each screen. Predictive ability was assessed using (1) age and body mass index-adjusted hazard ratios (HR) for breast density (time-varying covariate), (2) likelihood-ratio statistics (ΔLR-χ2) and (3) concordance indices. RESULTS: In total, 2704 invasive breast cancers were diagnosed during follow-up (median = 5.2 yr; median mammograms per woman = 3). When compared with an age- and body mass index-only model, the gain in statistical information provided by the continuous longitudinal density measure was 23% greater than that provided by BI-RADS density (follow-up after baseline mammogram: ΔLR-χ2 = 379.6 (degrees of freedom (df) = 2) vs. 307.7 (df = 3)), which increased to 35% (ΔLR-χ2 = 251.2 vs. 186.7) for follow-up after three mammograms (n = 76,313, 2169 cancers). There was a sixfold difference in observed risk between densest and fattiest eight-category longitudinal density (HR = 6.3, 95% CI 4.7-8.7), versus a fourfold difference with BI-RADS density (HR = 4.3, 95% CI 3.4-5.5). Discriminatory accuracy was marginally greater for longitudinal versus BI-RADS density (c-index = 0.64 vs. 0.63, mean difference = 0.008, 95% CI 0.003-0.012). CONCLUSIONS: Estimating mammographic density using a woman's history of breast density is likely to be more reliable than using the most recent observation only, which may lead to more reliable and accurate estimates of individual breast cancer risk. Longitudinal breast density has the potential to improve personal breast cancer risk estimation in women attending mammography screening.

Risk of second primary cancer among women in the Kaiser Permanente Breast Cancer Survivors Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer survivors are living longer due to early detection and advances in treatment and are at increased risk for second primary cancers. Comprehensive evaluation of second cancer risk among patients treated in recent decades is lacking. METHODS: We identified 16,004 females diagnosed with a first primary stage I-III breast cancer between 1990 and 2016 (followed through 2017) and survived ≥ 1 year at Kaiser Permanente (KP) Colorado, Northwest, and Washington. Second cancer was defined as an invasive primary cancer diagnosed ≥ 12 months after the first primary breast cancer. Second cancer risk was evaluated for all cancers (excluding ipsilateral breast cancer) using standardized incidence ratios (SIRs), and a competing risk approach for cumulative incidence and hazard ratios (HRs) adjusted for KP center, treatment, age, and year of first cancer diagnosis. RESULTS: Over a median follow-up of 6.2 years, 1,562 women developed second cancer. Breast cancer survivors had a 70% higher risk of any cancer (95%CI = 1.62-1.79) and 45% higher risk of non-breast cancer (95%CI = 1.37-1.54) compared with the general population. SIRs were highest for malignancies of the peritoneum (SIR = 3.44, 95%CI = 1.65-6.33), soft tissue (SIR = 3.32, 95%CI = 2.51-4.30), contralateral breast (SIR = 3.10, 95%CI = 2.82-3.40), and acute myeloid leukemia (SIR = 2.11, 95%CI = 1.18-3.48)/myelodysplastic syndrome (SIR = 3.25, 95%CI = 1.89-5.20). Women also had elevated risks for oral, colon, pancreas, lung, and uterine corpus cancer, melanoma, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (SIR range = 1.31-1.97). Radiotherapy was associated with increased risk for all second cancers (HR = 1.13, 95%CI = 1.01-1.25) and soft tissue sarcoma (HR = 2.36, 95%CI = 1.17-4.78), chemotherapy with decreased risk for all second cancers (HR = 0.87, 95%CI = 0.78-0.98) and increased myelodysplastic syndrome risk (HR = 3.01, 95%CI = 1.01-8.94), and endocrine therapy with lower contralateral breast cancer risk (HR = 0.48, 95%CI = 0.38-0.60). Approximately 1 in 9 women who survived ≥ 1 year developed second cancer, 1 in 13 developed second non-breast cancer, and 1 in 30 developed contralateral breast cancer by 10 years. Trends in cumulative incidence declined for contralateral breast cancer but not for second non-breast cancers. CONCLUSIONS: Elevated risks of second cancer among breast cancer survivors treated in recent decades suggests that heightened surveillance is warranted and continued efforts to reduce second cancers are needed.

Variation in second breast cancer risk after primary invasive cancer by time since primary cancer diagnosis and estrogen receptor status.

BACKGROUND: In women with previously treated breast cancer, occurrence and timing of second breast cancers have implications for surveillance. The authors examined the timing of second breast cancers by primary cancer estrogen receptor (ER) status in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. METHODS: Women who were diagnosed with American Joint Commission on Cancer stage I-III breast cancer were identified within six Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium registries from 2000 to 2017. Characteristics collected at primary breast cancer diagnosis included demographics, ER status, and treatment. Second breast cancer events included subsequent ipsilateral or contralateral breast cancers diagnosed >6 months after primary diagnosis. The authors examined cumulative incidence and second breast cancer rates by primary cancer ER status during 1-5 versus 6-10 years after diagnosis. RESULTS: At 10 years, the cumulative second breast cancer incidence was 11.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 10.7%-13.1%) for women with ER-negative disease and 7.5% (95% CI, 7.0%-8.0%) for those with ER-positive disease. Women with ER-negative cancer had higher second breast cancer rates than those with ER-positive cancer during the first 5 years of follow-up (16.0 per 1000 person-years [PY]; 95% CI, 14.2-17.9 per 1000 PY; vs. 7.8 per 1000 PY; 95% CI, 7.3-8.4 per 1000 PY, respectively). After 5 years, second breast cancer rates were similar for women with ER-negative versus ER-positive breast cancer (12.1 per 1000 PY; 95% CI, 9.9-14.7; vs. 9.3 per 1000 PY; 95% CI, 8.4-10.3 per 1000 PY, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: ER-negative primary breast cancers are associated with a higher risk of second breast cancers than ER-positive cancers during the first 5 years after diagnosis. Further study is needed to examine the potential benefit of more intensive surveillance targeting these women in the early postdiagnosis period.

Digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis for detecting invasive lobular and ductal carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) is a distinct histological subtype of breast cancer that can make early detection with mammography challenging. We compared imaging performance of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) to digital mammography (DM) for diagnoses of ILC, invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC), and invasive mixed carcinoma (IMC) in a screening population. METHODS: We included screening exams (DM; n = 1,715,249 or DBT; n = 414,793) from 2011 to 2018 among 839,801 women in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Examinations were followed for one year to ascertain incident ILC, IDC, or IMC. We measured cancer detection rate (CDR) and interval invasive cancer rate/1000 screening examinations for each histological subtype and stratified by breast density and modality. We calculated relative risk (RR) for DM vs. DBT using log-binomial models to adjust for the propensity of receiving DBT vs. DM. RESULTS: Unadjusted CDR per 1000 mammograms of ILC overall was 0.33 (95%CI: 0.30-0.36) for DM; 0.45 (95%CI: 0.39-0.52) for DBT, and for women with dense breasts- 0.33 (95%CI: 0.29-0.37) for DM and 0.54 (95%CI: 0.43-0.66) for DBT. Similar results were noted for IDC and IMC. Adjusted models showed a significantly increased RR for cancer detection with DBT compared to DM among women with dense breasts for all three histologies (RR; 95%CI: ILC 1.53; 1.09-2.14, IDC 1.21; 1.02-1.44, IMC 1.76; 1.30-2.38), but no significant increase among women with non-dense breasts. CONCLUSION: DBT was associated with higher CDR for ILC, IDC, and IMC for women with dense breasts. Early detection of ILC with DBT may improve outcomes for this distinct clinical entity.

National Performance Benchmarks for Screening Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Update from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.

Background It is important to establish screening mammography performance benchmarks for quality improvement efforts. Purpose To establish performance benchmarks for digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening and evaluate performance trends over time in U.S. community practice. Materials and Methods In this retrospective study, DBT screening examinations were collected from five Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) registries between 2011 and 2018. Performance measures included abnormal interpretation rate (AIR), cancer detection rate (CDR), sensitivity, specificity, and false-negative rate (FNR) and were calculated based on the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, fifth edition, and compared with concurrent BCSC DM screening examinations, previously published BCSC and National Mammography Database benchmarks, and expert opinion acceptable performance ranges. Benchmarks were derived from the distribution of performance measures across radiologists (n = 84 or n = 73 depending on metric) and were presented as percentiles. Results A total of 896 101 women undergoing 2 301 766 screening examinations (458 175 DBT examinations [median age, 58 years; age range, 18-111 years] and 1 843 591 DM examinations [median age, 58 years; age range, 18-109 years]) were included in this study. DBT screening performance measures were as follows: AIR, 8.3% (95% CI: 7.5, 9.3); CDR per 1000 screens, 5.8 (95% CI: 5.4, 6.1); sensitivity, 87.4% (95% CI: 85.2, 89.4); specificity, 92.2% (95% CI: 91.3, 93.0); and FNR per 1000 screens, 0.8 (95% CI: 0.7, 1.0). When compared with BCSC DM screening examinations from the same time period and previously published BCSC and National Mammography Database performance benchmarks, all performance measures were higher for DBT except sensitivity and FNR, which were similar to concurrent and prior DM performance measures. The following proportions of radiologists achieved acceptable performance ranges with DBT: 97.6% for CDR, 91.8% for sensitivity, 75.0% for AIR, and 74.0% for specificity. Conclusion In U.S. community practice, large proportions of radiologists met acceptable performance ranges for screening performance metrics with DBT. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Lee and Moy in this issue.

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.

Using Protection Motivation Theory to Predict Intentions for Breast Cancer Risk Management: Intervention Mechanisms from a Randomized Controlled Trial.

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the direct and indirect effects of a web-based, Protection Motivation Theory (PMT)-informed breast cancer education and decision support tool on intentions for risk-reducing medication and breast MRI among high-risk women. Women with ≥ 1.67% 5-year breast cancer risk (N = 995) were randomized to (1) control or (2) the PMT-informed intervention. Six weeks post-intervention, 924 (93% retention) self-reported PMT constructs and behavioral intentions. Bootstrapped mediations evaluated the direct effect of the intervention on behavioral intentions and the mediating role of PMT constructs. There was no direct intervention effect on intentions for risk-reducing medication or MRI (p's ≥ 0.12). There were significant indirect effects on risk-reducing medication intentions via perceived risk, self-efficacy, and response efficacy, and on MRI intentions via perceived risk and response efficacy (p's ≤ 0.04). The PMT-informed intervention effected behavioral intentions via perceived breast cancer risk, self-efficacy, and response efficacy. Future research should extend these findings from intentions to behavior. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03029286 (date of registration: January 24, 2017).

Treatment-related thoracic soft tissue sarcomas in US breast cancer survivors: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Soft tissue sarcoma is a rare but serious side-effect of radiotherapy to treat breast cancer, and rates are increasing in the USA. We evaluated potential co-factors in two complimentary cohorts of US breast cancer survivors. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we sourced data from the Kaiser Permanente (KP) cohort and the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) 13 registries cohort, both in the USA. The KP cohort included 15 940 women diagnosed with breast cancer from Jan 1, 1990, to Dec 31, 2016, in KP Colorado, KP Northwest (which serves Oregon and Southwest Washington state), or KP Washington, with detailed treatment data and comorbidities (including hypertension and diabetes at or before breast cancer diagnosis) from electronic medical records. The SEER cohort included 457 300 women diagnosed with breast cancer from Jan 1, 1992, to Dec 31, 2016, within the 13 SEER registries across the USA, with initial treatment data (yes vs no or unknown). Eligibility criteria in both cohorts were female breast cancer survivors (stage I-III) aged 20-84 years at diagnosis who had breast cancer surgery, and had survived at least 1 year after breast cancer diagnosis. The outcome of interest was any second thoracic soft tissue sarcoma (angiosarcomas and other subtypes) that developed at least 1 year after breast cancer diagnosis. Risk factors for thoracic soft tissue sarcoma were assessed using multivariable Poisson regression models. FINDINGS: In the KP cohort, median follow-up was 9·3 years (IQR 5·7-13·9) and 19 (0·1%) of 15 940 eligible, evaluable women developed a thoracic soft tissue sarcoma (11 angiosarcomas, eight other subtypes). Most (94·7%; 18 of 19) thoracic soft tissue sarcomas occurred in women treated with radiotherapy; thus, radiotherapy was associated with a significantly increased risk of developing a thoracic soft tissue sarcoma (relative risk [RR] 8·1 [95% CI 1·1-60·4]; p=0·0052), but there was no association with prescribed dose, fractionation, or boost. The RR of angiosarcoma after anthracyclines was 3·6 (95% CI 1·0-13·3; p=0·058). Alkylating agents were associated with an increased risk of developing other sarcomas (RR 7·7 [95% CI 1·2-150·8]; p=0·026). History of hypertension (RR 4·8 [95% CI 1·3-17·6]; p=0·017) and diabetes (5·3 [1·4-20·8]; p=0·036) were each associated with around a five-times increased risk of angiosarcoma. In the SEER cohort, 430 (0·1%) of 457 300 patients had subsequent thoracic soft tissue sarcomas (268 angiosarcomas and 162 other subtypes) after a median follow-up of 8·3 years (IQR 4·3-13·9). Most (77·9%; 335 of 430) cases occurred after radiotherapy; thus, radiotherapy was associated with a significantly increased risk of developing a thoracic soft tissue sarcoma (RR 3·0 [95% CI 2·4-3·8]; p<0·0001) and, for angiosarcomas, the RR for breast-conserving surgery plus radiotherapy versus mastectomy plus radiotherapy was 1·9 (1·1-3·3; p=0·012). By 10 years after radiotherapy, the cumulative incidence of thoracic soft tissue sarcoma was 0·21% (95% CI 0·12-0·34) in the KP cohort and 0·15% (95% CI 0·13-0·17) in SEER. INTERPRETATION: Radiotherapy was the strongest risk factor for thoracic soft tissue sarcoma in both cohorts. This finding, along with the novel findings for diabetes and hypertension as potential risk factors for angiosarcomas, warrant further investigation as potential targets for prevention strategies and increased surveillance. FUNDING: US National Cancer Institute and National Institutes of Health.

Endocrine therapy initiation among women with stage I-III invasive, hormone receptor-positive breast cancer from 2001-2016.

PURPOSE: This retrospective cohort study examined patterns of endocrine therapy initiation over time and by demographic, tumor, and treatment characteristics. METHODS: We included 7777 women from three U.S. integrated healthcare systems diagnosed with incident stage I-III hormone receptor-positive breast cancer between 2001 and 2016. We extracted endocrine therapy from pharmacy dispensings, defining initiation as dispensings within 12 months of diagnosis. Demographic, tumor, and treatment characteristics were collected from electronic health records. Using generalized linear models with a log link and Poisson distribution, we estimated initiation of any endocrine therapy, tamoxifen, and aromatase inhibitors (AI) over time with relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) adjusted for age, tumor characteristics, diagnosis year, other treatment, and study site. RESULTS: Among women aged 20+ (mean 62 years), 6329 (81.4%) initiated any endocrine therapy, and 1448 (18.6%) did not initiate endocrine therapy. Tamoxifen initiation declined from 67 to 15% between 2001 and 2016. AI initiation increased from 6 to 69% between 2001 and 2016 in women aged ≥ 55 years. The proportion of women who did not initiate endocrine therapy decreased from 19 to 12% between 2002 and 2014 then increased to 17% by 2016. After adjustment, women least likely to initiate endocrine therapy were older (RR = 0.81, 95% CI 0.77-0.85 for age 75+ vs. 55-64), Black (RR = 0.93, 95% CI 0.87-1.00 vs. white), and had stage I disease (RR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.85-0.91 vs. stage III). CONCLUSIONS: Despite an increase in AI use over time, at least one in six eligible women did not initiate endocrine therapy, highlighting opportunities for improving endocrine therapy uptake in breast cancer survivors.

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.

Accuracy of tumor registry versus pharmacy dispensings for breast cancer adjuvant endocrine therapy.

PURPOSE: Accounting for endocrine therapy use for breast cancer treatment is important for studies of survivorship. We evaluated the accuracy of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) breast cancer endocrine therapy data compared with pharmacy dispensings from an integrated health system. METHODS: We included women with non-metastatic hormone receptor positive primary breast cancer diagnosed between 1995 and 2017 enrolled in Kaiser Permanente Washington, linking their data with SEER. We used pharmacy dispensings for endocrine therapy within one year following diagnosis as our reference standard. We calculated kappa (concordance), positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive values (NPV) overall and stratified by woman and tumor characteristics of interest. RESULTS: Of 5,055 women, mean age at diagnosis was 62 years (interquartile range = 53-71); 53% had localized stage, 56% received lumpectomy with radiation, and 31% received chemotherapy. SEER data alone identified 67% of women as having received endocrine therapy; this increased to 75% with pharmacy dispensings. SEER's concordance with pharmacy dispensings was 0.68 (PPV = 91%; NPV = 76%). PPV did not vary by tumor or women characteristics; however, NPV declined with younger age at diagnosis (64% in < 45 years vs. 86% in 75+ years), increasing tumor stage (49% in regional stage vs. 91% in DCIS), and chemotherapy treatment (41% in those with chemotherapy vs. 83% in those without chemotherapy). CONCLUSION: Pharmacy dispensings enable more complete endocrine therapy capture, particularly in women with more advanced tumors or who receive chemotherapy. We determined woman, tumor, and treatment characteristics that contribute to underascertainment of endocrine therapy use in tumor registries.

The influence of treatment on hormone receptor subgroups and breast cancer-specific mortality within US integrated healthcare systems.

PURPOSE: Estrogen receptor (ER) + /progesterone receptor (PR) - or ER-/PR + breast cancer prognosis has not been well-described outside of clinical trials. We evaluated the relationship between ER/PR (ER + /PR-, ER-/PR + , ER + /PR + , ER-/PR-) subgroups and breast cancer-specific mortality within a general community setting in the US. METHODS: A Retrospective cohort of 11,737 women diagnosed with breast cancer between 1990 and 2016 within US integrated healthcare systems (median follow-up = 7 years; 1,104 breast cancer-specific deaths) were included in this analysis. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) adjusting for site, demographic and clinicopathological characteristics, and treatment (surgery/radiotherapy, chemotherapy, endocrine therapy). RESULTS: Breast cancer-specific mortality was higher for those with ER + /PR- (n = 1,233) compared with ER + /PR + tumors (n = 8,439) before (HR = 1.43; 95% CI = 1.17-1.75) and after treatment adjustment (HR = 1.58; 95% CI = 1.27-1.97). ER + /PR- breast cancer-specific mortality remained higher than ER + /PR + tumors when stratified by treatment received. Breast cancer-specific mortality was similar in ER-/PR + (n = 161) compared with ER + /PR + tumors. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that ER + /PR- tumors may have worse breast cancer-specific mortality than ER + /PR + tumors in a community setting.

Quantifying cancer risk from exposures to medical imaging in the Risk of Pediatric and Adolescent Cancer Associated with Medical Imaging (RIC) Study: research methods and cohort profile.

PURPOSE: The Risk of Pediatric and Adolescent Cancer Associated with Medical Imaging (RIC) Study is quantifying the association between cumulative radiation exposure from fetal and/or childhood medical imaging and subsequent cancer risk. This manuscript describes the study cohorts and research methods. METHODS: The RIC Study is a longitudinal study of children in two retrospective cohorts from 6 U.S. healthcare systems and from Ontario, Canada over the period 1995-2017. The fetal-exposure cohort includes children whose mothers were enrolled in the healthcare system during their entire pregnancy and followed to age 20. The childhood-exposure cohort includes children born into the system and followed while continuously enrolled. Imaging utilization was determined using administrative data. Computed tomography (CT) parameters were collected to estimate individualized patient organ dosimetry. Organ dose libraries for average exposures were constructed for radiography, fluoroscopy, and angiography, while diagnostic radiopharmaceutical biokinetic models were applied to estimate organ doses received in nuclear medicine procedures. Cancers were ascertained from local and state/provincial cancer registry linkages. RESULTS: The fetal-exposure cohort includes 3,474,000 children among whom 6,606 cancers (2394 leukemias) were diagnosed over 37,659,582 person-years; 0.5% had in utero exposure to CT, 4.0% radiography, 0.5% fluoroscopy, 0.04% angiography, 0.2% nuclear medicine. The childhood-exposure cohort includes 3,724,632 children in whom 6,358 cancers (2,372 leukemias) were diagnosed over 36,190,027 person-years; 5.9% were exposed to CT, 61.1% radiography, 6.0% fluoroscopy, 0.4% angiography, 1.5% nuclear medicine. CONCLUSION: The RIC Study is poised to be the largest study addressing risk of childhood and adolescent cancer associated with ionizing radiation from medical imaging, estimated with individualized patient organ dosimetry.

Positive predictive value and sensitivity of ICD-9-CM codes for identifying pediatric leukemia.

BACKGROUND: To facilitate community-based epidemiologic studies of pediatric leukemia, we validated use of ICD-9-CM diagnosis codes to identify pediatric leukemia cases in electronic medical records of six U.S. integrated health plans from 1996-2015 and evaluated the additional contributions of procedure codes for diagnosis/treatment. PROCEDURES: Subjects (N = 408) were children and adolescents born in the health systems and enrolled for at least 120 days after the date of the first leukemia ICD-9-CM code or tumor registry diagnosis. The gold standard was the health system tumor registry and/or medical record review. We calculated positive predictive value (PPV) and sensitivity by number of ICD-9-CM codes received in the 120-day period following and including the first code. We evaluated whether adding chemotherapy and/or bone marrow biopsy/aspiration procedure codes improved PPV and/or sensitivity. RESULTS: Requiring receipt of one or more codes resulted in 99% sensitivity (95% confidence interval [CI]: 98-100%) but poor PPV (70%; 95% CI: 66-75%). Receipt of two or more codes improved PPV to 90% (95% CI: 86-93%) with 96% sensitivity (95% CI: 93-98%). Requiring at least four codes maximized PPV (95%; 95% CI: 92-98%) without sacrificing sensitivity (93%; 95% CI: 89-95%). Across health plans, PPV for four codes ranged from 84-100% and sensitivity ranged from 83-95%. Including at least one code for a bone marrow procedure or chemotherapy treatment had minimal impact on PPV or sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS: The use of diagnosis codes from the electronic health record has high PPV and sensitivity for identifying leukemia in children and adolescents if more than one code is required.

Patient and tumour characteristics of screening-age adults diagnosed with screen-detected versus symptomatic colon cancer.

AIM: International studies have shown that most colon cancers are diagnosed among people with symptoms, but research is limited in the United States. Here, we conducted a retrospective study of adults aged 50-85 years diagnosed with stage I-IIIA colon cancer between 1995 and 2014 in two US healthcare systems. METHODS: Mode of detection (screening or symptomatic) was ascertained from medical records. We estimated unadjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) comparing detection mode by patient factors at diagnosis (year, age, sex, race, smoking status, body mass index [BMI], Charlson score), prediagnostic primary care utilization, and tumour characteristics (stage, location). RESULTS: Of 1,675 people with colon cancer, 38.4% were screen-detected, while 61.6% were diagnosed following symptomatic presentation. Screen-detected cancer was more common among those diagnosed between 2010 and 2014 versus 1995-1999 (OR 1.65, 95% CI: 1.19-2.28), and those with a BMI of 25-<30 kg/m2 (OR 1.54, 95% CI: 1.21-1.98) or ≥30 kg/m2 (OR 1.52, 95% CI: 1.18-1.96) versus <25 kg/m2 . Screen-detected cancer was less common among people aged 76-85 (OR 0.50, 95% CI: 0.39-0.65) versus 50-64, those with comorbidity scores >0 (OR 0.71, 95% CI: 0.56-0.91 for score = 1, OR 0.34, 95% CI: 0.26-0.45 for score = 2+), and those with 2+ prediagnostic primary care visits (OR 0.53, 95% CI: 0.37-0.76) versus 0 visits. The odds of screen detection were lower among patients diagnosed with stage IIA (OR 0.33, 95% CI = 0.27-0.41) or IIB (OR 0.12, 95% CI: 0.06-0.24) cancers versus stage I. CONCLUSIONS: Most colon cancers among screen-eligible adults were diagnosed following symptomatic presentation. Even with increasing screening rates over time, research is needed to better understand why specific groups are more likely to be diagnosed when symptomatic and identify opportunities for interventions.