Lung Cancer Screening Among Mammography Patients: Knowledge, Eligibility, Participation, and Interest.

OBJECTIVE: To determine lung cancer screening eligibility, knowledge, and interest and to quantify the effect of the expanded 2021 lung cancer screening eligibility criteria among women presenting for screening mammography, a group with demonstrable interest in cancer screening. METHODS: A single-page survey was distributed to patients presenting for screening mammography, from January-March 2020 and June 2020-January 2021, at 2 academic medical centers on the East and West Coasts. The population served by the East Coast institution has greater poverty, greater ethnic/racial diversity, and lower education levels. Survey questions included age, smoking history, lung cancer screening knowledge, participation, and interest. Lung cancer screening eligibility was determined for both 2013 and 2021 USPSTF guidelines. Descriptive statistics were calculated, and data were compared between groups using the Chi-square test, Mann-Whitney nonparametric test, and the 2-sample t test. RESULTS: 5512 surveys were completed; 33% (1824) of women reported a history of smoking-30% (1656) former smokers and 3% (156) current smokers. Among women with a smoking history, 7% (127/1824) were eligible for lung cancer screening using 2013% and 11% (207/1824) using the 2021 USPSTF criteria. Interest in lung cancer screening was high (73%; 151/207) among eligible women using 2021 USPSTF criteria, but only 42% (87/207) had heard of lung cancer screening and only 28% (57/207) had received prior LDCT screening. CONCLUSION: Eligible screening mammography patients reported high levels of interest in lung cancer screening but low levels of knowledge and participation. Linking mammography and LDCT appointments may improve lung cancer screening participation.

Variability Among Breast Cancer Risk Classification Models When Applied at the Level of the Individual Woman.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer risk models guide screening and chemoprevention decisions, but the extent and effect of variability among models, particularly at the individual level, is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To quantify the accuracy and disagreement between commonly used risk models in categorizing individual women as average vs. high risk for developing invasive breast cancer. DESIGN: Comparison of three risk prediction models: Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (BCRAT), Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) model, and International Breast Intervention Study (IBIS) model. SUBJECTS: Women 40 to 74 years of age presenting for screening mammography at a multisite health system between 2011 and 2015, with 5-year follow-up for cancer outcome. MAIN MEASURES: Comparison of model discrimination and calibration at the population level and inter-model agreement for 5-year breast cancer risk at the individual level using two cutoffs (≥ 1.67% and ≥ 3.0%). KEY RESULTS: A total of 31,115 women were included. When using the ≥ 1.67% threshold, more than 21% of women were classified as high risk for developing breast cancer in the next 5 years by one model, but average risk by another model. When using the ≥ 3.0% threshold, more than 5% of women had disagreements in risk severity between models. Almost half of the women (46.6%) were classified as high risk by at least one of the three models (e.g., if all three models were applied) for the threshold of ≥ 1.67%, and 11.1% were classified as high risk for ≥ 3.0%. All three models had similar accuracy at the population level. CONCLUSIONS: Breast cancer risk estimates for individual women vary substantially, depending on which risk assessment model is used. The choice of cutoff used to define high risk can lead to adverse effects for screening, preventive care, and quality of life for misidentified individuals. Clinicians need to be aware of the high false-positive and false-negative rates and variation between models when talking with patients.

Breast Cancer Among Transgender and Nonbinary Patients: Paradigms for Improving Data Collection and Inclusion in Breast Imaging Settings.

Breast cancer incidence among transgender and nonbinary (TGNB) individuals is not well characterized owing to the absence of robust data collection among this patient population. Consequently, breast cancer risks are largely unknown, and screening guidelines are not based on robust evidence. Additionally, TGNB patients experience barriers to access health care. A first step in improving data collection, research, and ultimately care of TGNB individuals is the identification of group members and demonstration to patients that our breast imaging centers are champions of LGBTQ+ health. At our institution, patients who present for breast imaging complete an iPad-administered breast imaging history and breast cancer risk assessment survey. Using the modified Tyrer-Cuzick model, the lifetime risk of developing breast cancer is estimated, and additional key history that may impact breast care and future breast imaging is collected. Under the previous clinic workflow, patients are identified as either "male" or "female" and complete a corresponding gender-specific survey. To improve care, we revised the survey using gender-inclusive language and developed four versions to allow patients to separately self-report their sex assigned at birth and gender identity. Relevant queries relating to hormone use and gender-affirming chest/breast surgery that are concordant with six gender-identity groups were added. Long-term collection of these inclusive data by imaging centers has the potential to enhance the data set available to improve breast care and better understand breast cancer risk and outcomes among TGNB populations.

SAVI SCOUT® localization of metastatic axillary lymph node prior to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for targeted axillary dissection: a pilot study.

PURPOSE: In clinically node-positive breast cancer, axillary staging after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is optimized with targeted axillary dissection (TAD), which includes removal of the biopsy-proven metastatic lymph node (LN) in addition to sentinel lymph nodes (SLN). Localization of the clipped node is currently performed post-NAC; however, technical limitations can make detection and localization of the treated LN challenging. We prospectively evaluated the feasibility of localizing the metastatic LN with a SAVI SCOUT® reflector (SAVI) prior to NAC for targeted removal at surgery. METHODS: Twenty-five patients with stage 2/3 breast cancer underwent ultrasound-guided localization of the biopsy-proven LN with SAVI prior to NAC. After NAC, patients with clinical response underwent TAD. Primary outcome measures were rate of successful localization, days between insertion of SAVI and axillary surgery, frequency of retrieval of clipped node, and frequency of SAVI-LN as SLN. RESULTS: After NAC, 23/25 (92%) had clinical axillary down-staging and underwent TAD. Two patients with persistent palpable axillary disease underwent ALND for initial staging. Axillary surgery was performed at an average of 141 days post-SAVI insertion and the SAVI was successfully retrieved in all cases. Among 23 patients undergoing TAD, the SAVI was retrieved within a LN in all patients, whereas clip migration was observed in two patients. The median SLN removed was 4, and SAVI-LN was SLN in 22/23 patients. Axillary pCR rate was 44%. CONCLUSION: Localizing a metastatic LN with SAVI reflector prior to NAC for targeted removal at surgery is feasible and may provide technical and logistical advantages over axillary localization post-NAC. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY: Clinical trials.gov identifier: NCT03411070.

Breast Density: Current Knowledge, Assessment Methods, and Clinical Implications.

Breast density is an accepted independent risk factor for the future development of breast cancer, and greater breast density has the potential to mask malignancies on mammography, thus lowering the sensitivity of screening mammography. The risk associated with dense breast tissue has been shown to be modifiable with changes in breast density. Numerous studies have sought to identify factors that influence breast density, including age, genetic, racial/ethnic, prepubertal, adolescent, lifestyle, environmental, hormonal, and reproductive history factors. Qualitative, semiquantitative, and quantitative methods of breast density assessment have been developed, but to date there is no consensus assessment method or reference standard for breast density. Breast density has been incorporated into breast cancer risk models, and there is growing consciousness of the clinical implications of dense breast tissue in both the medical community and public arena. Efforts to improve breast cancer screening sensitivity for women with dense breasts have led to increased attention to supplemental screening methods in recent years, prompting the American College of Radiology to publish Appropriateness Criteria for supplemental screening based on breast density.

Breast Density Legislation Impact on Breast Cancer Screening and Risk Assessment.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate breast density notification legislation (BDNL) on breast imaging practice patterns, risk assessment, and supplemental screening. METHODS: A 20-question anonymous web-based survey was administered to practicing Society of Breast Imaging radiologists in the U.S. between February and April 2021 regarding breast cancer risk assessment, supplemental screening, and density measurements. Results were compared between facilities with and without BDNL using the two-sided Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: One hundred and ninety-seven radiologists from 41 U.S. states, with (187/197, 95%) or without (10/197, 5%) BDNL, responded. Fifty-seven percent (113/197) performed breast cancer risk assessment, and 93% (183/197) offered supplemental screening for women with dense breasts. Between facilities with or without BDNL, there was no significant difference in whether risk assessment was (P = 0.19) or was not performed (P = 0.20). There was no significant difference in supplemental screening types (P > 0.05) between BDNL and non-BDNL facilities. Thirty-five percent (69/197) of facilities offered no supplemental screening studies, and 25% (49/197) had no future plans to offer supplemental screening. A statistically significant greater proportion of non-BDNL facilities offered no supplemental screening (P < 0.03) and had no plans to offer supplemental screening compared to BDNL facilities (P < 0.02). CONCLUSION: Facilities in BDNL states often offer supplemental screening compared to facilities in non-BDNL states. Compared to BDNL facilities, a statistically significant proportion of non-BDNL facilities had no supplemental screening nor plans for implementation. Our data suggest that upcoming federal BDNL will impact how supplemental screening is addressed in currently non-BDNL states.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Breast Imaging Education.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on breast imaging education. METHODS: A 22-item survey addressing four themes during the early pandemic (time on service, structured education, clinical training, future plans) was emailed to Society of Breast Imaging members and members-in-training in July 2020. Responses were compared using McNemar's and Mann-Whitney U tests; a general linear model was used for multivariate analysis. RESULTS: Of 136 responses (136/2824, 4.8%), 96 U.S. responses from radiologists with trainees, residents, and fellows were included. Clinical exposure declined during the early pandemic, with almost no medical students on service (66/67, 99%) and fewer clinical days for residents (78/89, 88%) and fellows (48/68, 71%). Conferences shifted to remote live format (57/78, 73%), with some canceled (15/78, 19%). Compared to pre-pandemic, resident diagnostic (75/78, 96% vs 26/78, 33%) (P < 0.001) and procedural (73/78, 94% vs 21/78, 27%) (P < 0.001) participation fell, as did fellow diagnostic (60/61, 98% vs 47/61, 77%) (P = 0.001) and procedural (60/61, 98% vs 43/61, 70%) (P < 0.001) participation. Most thought that the pandemic negatively influenced resident and fellow screening (64/77, 83% and 43/60, 72%, respectively), diagnostic (66/77, 86% and 37/60, 62%), and procedural (71/77, 92% and 37/61, 61%) education. However, a majority thought that decreased time on service (36/67, 54%) and patient contact (46/79, 58%) would not change residents' pursuit of a breast imaging fellowship. CONCLUSION: The pandemic has had a largely negative impact on breast imaging education, with reduction in exposure to all aspects of breast imaging. However, this may not affect career decisions.

Adaptations of Breast Imaging Centers to the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Survey of California and Texas.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the early impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on breast imaging centers in California and Texas and compare regional differences. METHODS: An 11-item survey was emailed to American College of Radiology accredited breast imaging facilities in California and Texas in August 2020. A question subset addressed March-April government restrictions on elective services ("during the shutdown" and "after reopening"). Comparisons were made between states with chi-square and Fisher's tests, and timeframes with McNemar's and paired t-tests. RESULTS: There were 54 respondents (54/240, 23%, 26 California, 28 Texas). Imaging volumes fell during the shutdown and remained below pre-pandemic levels after reopening, with reduction in screening greatest (ultrasound 12% of baseline, mammography 13%, MRI 23%), followed by diagnostic MRI (43%), procedures (44%), and diagnostics (45%). California reported higher volumes during the shutdown (procedures, MRI) and after reopening (diagnostics, procedures, MRI) versus Texas (P = 0.001-0.02). Most screened patients (52/54, 96% symptoms and 42/54, 78% temperatures), and 100% (53/53) modified check-in and check-out. Reading rooms or physician work were altered for social distancing (31/54, 57%). Physician mask (45/48, 94%), gown (15/48, 31%), eyewear (22/48, 46%), and face shield (22/48, 46%) use during procedures increased after reopening versus pre-pandemic (P < 0.001-0.03). Physician (47/54, 87%) and staff (45/53, 85%) financial impacts were common, but none reported terminations. CONCLUSION: Breast imaging volumes during the early pandemic fell more severely in Texas than in California. Safety measures and financial impacts on physicians and staff were similar in both states.

Microchipping the breast: an effective new technology for localizing non-palpable breast lesions for surgery.

PURPOSE: Use of a wire to localize a non-palpable breast lesion for surgery is standard but archaic. We sought to evaluate a new radiofrequency localization system (RFLS) as an effective, non-radioactive alternative to the wire. METHODS: Patients who required surgical excision of a non-palpable breast lesion were consented for the study. Patients underwent localization with a radiofrequency Tag and surgical removal guided by the handheld LOCalizer probe. The primary study endpoint was successful placement and retrieval of the Tag, and secondary endpoints included marker migration; days prior to surgery of Tag insertion; patient, radiologist, and surgeon experience; distance of Tag from skin; and positive margin and re-excision rates for cancer. RESULTS: Fifty patients had successful placement and retrieval of the radiofrequency Tag. Likert questionnaire data revealed that most patients thought the procedure went smoothly and was easier than expected. Radiologists and surgeons thought that the Tag was as reliable as the wire. Of the 33 patients who had surgery for in situ or invasive cancer, one had a positive margin on final pathology (3%) and two underwent re-excision (6%). CONCLUSIONS: Data from this pilot study suggest that the RFLS is an effective localization system for non-palpable breast lesions intended for surgical removal. Unlike most other technologies, the LOCalizer probe detects distance from the Tag, and this unique feature may have contributed to the low positive margin rate seen in this study. The RFLS appears to offer advantages over current localization procedures and should be explored as an alternative to wire. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03202472.

Assessing the Effect of Lifetime Contralateral Breast Cancer Risk on the Selection of Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy for Unilateral Breast Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) rates are rising, with fear implicated as a contributing factor. This study used a contralateral breast cancer (CBC) risk stratification tool to assess whether the selection of CPM is reflective of future CBC risk. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective study evaluated 404 women with unilateral breast cancer treated with breast conservation, unilateral mastectomy, or bilateral mastectomy within a single multidisciplinary clinic. Women were evaluated by the Manchester risk tool to calculate lifetime CBC risk. Logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate whether CBC risk was associated with CPM, and the clinical rationale for prophylactic mastectomy justification was recorded. RESULTS: Sixty-two percent underwent breast conservation, 18% unilateral mastectomy, and 20% bilateral mastectomy. In the CPM cohort, 36% had > 20% calculated lifetime CBC risk. In the invasive cohort, younger age (odds ratio 2.65, P < .0001) and genetic mutation positivity (odds ratio 35.39, P = .019) independently predicted CPM. Other contributing factors included benign contralateral breast findings (29%) and recommendations against breast conservation due to disease burden (28%). Six percent selected CPM as a result of an unsubstantiated fear regarding breast cancer. CONCLUSION: The majority of women (63%) who selected CPM had < 20% CBC risk. In these lower-risk women selecting CPM, factors increasing reasonable fear dominated surgical choice (81% of this subset).

Predictors associated with MRI surveillance screening in women with a personal history of unilateral breast cancer but without a genetic predisposition for future contralateral breast cancer.

PURPOSE: For women with a personal history of breast cancer (PHBC), no validated mechanisms exist to calculate future contralateral breast cancer (CBC) risk. The Manchester risk stratification guidelines were developed to evaluate CBC risk in women with a PHBC, primarily for surgical decision making. This tool may be informative for the use of MRI screening, as CBC risk is an assumed consideration for high-risk surveillance. METHODS: Three hundred twenty-two women with a PHBC were treated with unilateral surgery within our multidisciplinary breast clinic. We calculated lifetime CBC risk using the Manchester tool, which incorporates age at diagnosis, family history, genetic mutation status, estrogen receptor positivity, and endocrine therapy use. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses (UVA/MVA) were performed, evaluating whether CBC risk predicted MRI surveillance. RESULTS: For women with invasive disease undergoing MRI surveillance, 66% had low, 23% above-average, and 11% moderate/high risk for CBC. On MVA, previous mammography-occult breast cancer [odds ratio (OR) 18.95, p < 0.0001], endocrine therapy use (OR 3.89, p = 0.009), dense breast tissue (OR 3.69, p = 0.0007), mastectomy versus lumpectomy (OR 3.12, p = 0.0041), and CBC risk (OR 3.17 for every 10% increase, p = 0.0002) were associated with MRI surveillance. No pathologic factors increasing ipsilateral breast cancer recurrence were significant on MVA. CONCLUSIONS: Although CBC risk predicted MRI surveillance, 89% with invasive disease undergoing MRI had <20% calculated CBC risk. Concerns related to future breast cancer detectability (dense breasts and/or previous mammography-occult disease) predominate decision making. Pathologic factors important for determining ipsilateral recurrence risk, aside from age, were not associated with MRI surveillance.

Mammographic signs of systemic disease.

Although mammography is primarily used for the detection of breast cancer, it can occasionally reveal breast abnormalities related to extramammary disease. Cardiovascular diseases such as congestive heart failure and central venous obstruction may manifest as venous engorgement and breast edema at mammography. Pathologic arterial calcifications seen at mammography can indicate an underlying risk factor for accelerated atherosclerosis such as chronic renal failure. Connective tissue diseases including rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, dermatomyositis-polymyositis, and systemic scleroderma typically manifest with bilateral axillary lymphadenopathy, and stromal calcifications are also seen in the latter three disease processes. Some diseases such as neurofibromatosis type 1 and filariasis may manifest with pathognomonic findings at mammography, whereas other systemic diseases such as Wegener granulomatosis, sarcoidosis, and amyloidosis can manifest as nonspecific breast masses that are indistinguishable from breast cancer and usually require tissue biopsy for confirmation. Knowledge of the imaging characteristics of various systemic diseases affecting the breast will aid the radiologist in differentiating systemic disease from suspect breast lesions, thereby helping ensure appropriate follow-up. Furthermore, recognition of systemic diseases such as Cowden syndrome that are associated with an increased risk of breast cancer will allow the radiologist to recommend appropriate surveillance.

Digital mammography: clinical image evaluation.

This article addresses the essential components of the clinical image evaluation process for mammography examinations. The American College of Radiology Mammography Accreditation Program has specified 8 categories of image evaluation that are addressed in this article. While focused on the 2-view screening examination, the same general principles should apply to diagnostic mammograms. This article specifically focuses on the clinical image evaluation process as it applies to digital mammography.

Negative predictive value of sonography and mammography in patients with focal breast pain.

The purpose of this study was to determine the negative predictive value of mammography and sonography in a population of patients with focal breast pain referred for imaging evaluation. Eighty-six consecutive patients with focal breast pain in the absence of a breast mass were retrospectively identified from an imaging database. The electronic inpatient and outpatient records for the 86 patients were reviewed. For patients who were diagnosed with breast cancer, pathology reports were reviewed to determine whether the painful area corresponded to the patient's cancer. In addition, patient records were linked to the institution's cancer registry. Of the 86 patients, 26 patients were lost to follow-up and did not appear in the institution's cancer registry. Four patients were diagnosed with breast carcinoma, two of whom had incidental cancers that were detected mammographically by microcalcifications and were separate from and unrelated to the area of pain. Seven patients underwent biopsy at the site of breast pain with benign diagnosis. Imaging and clinical follow-up for the 51 patients with benign or negative imaging at the site of pain showed no abnormality with a mean follow-up of 26.5 months. The negative predictive value of mammography and sonography in patients with breast pain was 100%. The negative predictive value of mammography and sonography for focal breast pain is high. Negative mammography and sonography can be reassuring to the treating clinician if follow-up is planned when physical examination is not suspicious. However, if physical examination is suspicious, biopsy should not be delayed.