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.

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

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

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.

Utilization and Cancer Yield of Probably Benign Assessment Category in the National Mammography Database: 2009 to 2018.

PURPOSE: Data on utilization rate and cancer yield of BI-RADS® category 3 in routine clinical practice in diagnostic mammography are sparse. The aim of this study was to determine utilization rate and cancer yield of BI-RADS 3 in diagnostic mammography in the ACR National Mammography Database (NMD). METHODS: Retrospective analysis of NMD mammograms from January 1, 2009, to June 30, 2018, was performed. BI-RADS 3 utilization rate in diagnostic setting was calculated and stratified by patient, facility, and examination-level variables. Patient-level cancer yield was calculated among women with BI-RADS 3 assessment and adequate follow-up (imaging follow-up ≥24 months or biopsy). Logistic regression was performed to assess the odds of utilization of BI-RADS 3, with respect to facility, examination, and patient variables, and the odds of malignancy among patients with probably benign findings. Chi-square and t tests were used to determine significance (P < .05). RESULTS: Data from 19,443,866 mammograms from 500 NMD facilities across 31 states were analyzed, of which 3,039,952 were diagnostic mammograms. Utilization rate of BI-RADS 3 was 15.5% (470,155 of 3,039,952) in the diagnostic setting. There was a statistically significant difference in BI-RADS 3 utilization rate across all collected variables (P < .001). Patient-level cancer yield at 2-year follow-up was 0.91% (2,009 of 220,672; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87%-0.95%) in the diagnostic setting. Patient and examination variables associated with significantly higher likelihood of malignancy included calcifications (odds ratio, 4.27; 95% CI, 2.43-7.51), patient age > 70 years (odds ratio, 3.77; 95% CI, 2.49-5.7), and presence of prior comparisons (odds ratio, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.07-1.42). CONCLUSIONS: In the NMD, BI-RADS 3 assessment was common in diagnostic mammography (15.5%), with an overall cancer yield of 0.91%, less than the benchmark of 2%. Utilization trends in diagnostic mammography warrant further research for optimization of use.

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 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.

Consensus survey on pre-procedural safety practices in radiological examinations: a multicenter study in seven Asian regions.

OBJECTIVE: To understand the status of pre-procedural safety practices in radiological examinations at radiology residency training institutions in various Asian regions. METHODS: A questionnaire based on the Joint Commission International Accreditation Standards was electronically sent to 3 institutions each in 10 geographical regions across 9 Asian countries. Questions addressing 45 practices were divided into 3 categories. A five-tier scale with numerical scores was used to evaluate safety practices in each institution. Responses obtained from three institutions in the United States were used to validate the execution rate of each surveyed safety practice. RESULTS: The institutional response rate was 70.0% (7 Asian regions, 21 institutions). 44 practices (all those surveyed except for the application of wrist tags for identifying patients with fall risks) were validated using the US participants. Overall, the Asian participants reached a consensus on 89% of the safety practices. Comparatively, most Asian participants did not routinely perform three pre-procedural practices in the examination appropriateness topic. CONCLUSION: Based on the responses from 21 participating Asian institutions, most routinely perform standard practices during radiological examinations except when it comes to examination appropriateness. This study can provide direction for safety policymakers scrutinizing and improving regional standards of care. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This is the first multicenter survey study to elucidate pre-procedural safety practices in radiological examinations in seven Asian regions.

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.

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-Based Screening Mammography for Women Aged <40: Outcomes From the National Mammography Database.

OBJECTIVE: There is insufficient large-scale evidence for screening mammography in women <40 years at elevated risk. This study compares risk-based screening of women aged 30 to 39 with risk factors versus women aged 40 to 49 without risk factors in the National Mammography Database (NMD). METHODS: This retrospective, HIPAA-compliant, institutional review board-exempt study analyzed data from 150 NMD mammography facilities in 31 states. Patients were stratified by 5-year age intervals, availability of prior mammograms, and specific risk factors for breast cancer: family history of breast cancer, personal history of breast cancer, and dense breasts. Four screening performance metrics were calculated for each age and risk group: recall rate (RR), cancer detection rate (CDR), and positive predictive values for biopsy recommended (PPV2) and biopsy performed (PPV3). RESULTS: Data from 5,986,131 screening mammograms performed between January 2008 and December 2015 in 2,647,315 women were evaluated. Overall, mean CDR was 3.69 of 1,000 (95% confidence interval: 3.64-3.74), RR was 9.89% (9.87%-9.92%), PPV2 was 20.1% (19.9%-20.4%), and PPV3 was 28.2% (27.0%-28.5%). Women aged 30 to 34 and 35 to 39 had similar CDR, RR, and PPVs, with the presence of the three evaluated risk factors associated with significantly higher CDR. Moreover, compared with a population currently recommended for screening mammography in the United States (aged 40-49 at average risk), incidence screening (at least one prior screening examination) of women aged 30 to 39 with the three evaluated risk factors has similar cancer detection rates and recall rates. DISCUSSION: Women with one or more of these three specific risk factors likely benefit from screening commencing at age 30 instead of age 40.

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.

Imaging and Management of Internal Mammary Lymph Nodes.

Internal mammary lymph nodes (IMLNs) account for approximately 10%-40% of the lymphatic drainage of the breast. Internal mammary lymph nodes measuring up to 10 mm are commonly seen on high-risk screening breast MRI examinations in patients without breast cancer and are considered benign if no other suspicious findings are present. Benign IMLNs demonstrate a fatty hilum, lobular or oval shape, and circumscribed margins without evidence of central necrosis, cortical thickening, or loss of fatty hilum. In patients with breast cancer, IMLN involvement can alter clinical stage and treatment planning. The incidence of IMLN metastases detected on US, CT, MRI, and PET-CT ranges from 10%-16%, with MRI and PET-CT demonstrating the highest sensitivities. Although there are no well-defined imaging criteria in the eighth edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging Manual for Breast Cancer, a long-axis measurement of ≥ 5 mm is suggested as a guideline to differentiate benign versus malignant IMLNs in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer. Abnormal morphology such as loss of fatty hilum, irregular shape, and rounded appearance (which can be quantified by a short-axis/long-axis length ratio greater than 0.5) also raises suspicion for IMLN metastases. MRI and PET-CT have good sensitivity and specificity for the detection of IMLN metastases, but fluorodeoxyglucose avidity can be seen in both benign conditions and metastatic disease. US is helpful for staging, and US-guided fine-needle aspiration can be performed in cases of suspected IMLN metastasis. Management of suspicious IMLNs identified on imaging is typically with chemotherapy and radiation, as surgical excision does not provide survival benefit and is performed only in rare cases.

Architectural Distortion on Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Management Algorithm and Pathological Outcome.

Architectural distortion on digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) can occur due to benign and malignant causes. With DBT, there is an increase in the detection of architectural distortion compared with 2D digital mammography, and the positive predictive value is high enough to justify tissue sampling when imaging findings are confirmed. Workup involves supplemental DBT views and ultrasound, with subsequent image-guided percutaneous biopsy using the modality on which it is best visualized. If architectural distortion is subtle and/or questionable on diagnostic imaging, MRI may be performed for problem solving, with subsequent biopsy of suspicious findings using MRI or DBT guidance, respectively. If no suspicious findings are noted on MRI, a six-month follow-up DBT may be performed. On pathology, malignant cases are noted in 6.8%-50.7% of the cases, most commonly due to invasive ductal carcinoma, followed by invasive lobular carcinoma. Radial scars are the most common benign cause, with stromal fibrosis and sclerosing adenosis being much less common. As there is an increase in the number of benign pathological outcomes for architectural distortion on DBT compared with 2D digital mammography, concordance should be based on the level of suspicion of imaging findings. As discordant cases have upgrade rates of up to 25%, surgical consultation is recommended for discordant radiologic-pathologic findings.

Abbreviated Breast MRI: Road to Clinical Implementation.

Breast MRI offers high sensitivity for breast cancer detection, with preferential detection of high-grade invasive cancers when compared to mammography and ultrasound. Despite the clear benefits of breast MRI in cancer screening, its cost, patient tolerance, and low utilization remain key issues. Abbreviated breast MRI, in which only a select number of sequences and postcontrast imaging are acquired, exploits the high sensitivity of breast MRI while reducing table time and reading time to maximize availability, patient tolerance, and accessibility. Worldwide studies of varying patient populations have demonstrated that the comparable diagnostic accuracy of abbreviated breast MRI is comparable to a full diagnostic protocol, highlighting the emerging role of abbreviated MRI screening in patients with an intermediate and high lifetime risk of breast cancer. The purpose of this review is to summarize the background and current literature relating to abbreviated MRI, highlight various protocols utilized in current multicenter clinical trials, describe workflow and clinical implementation issues, and discuss the future of abbreviated protocols, including advanced MRI techniques.

Linkage of the ACR National Mammography Database to the Network of State Cancer Registries: Proof of Concept Evaluation by the ACR National Mammography Database Committee.

PURPOSE: The National Mammography Database (NMD) contains nearly 20 million examinations from 693 facilities; it is the largest information source for use and effectiveness of breast imaging in the United States. NMD collects demographic, imaging, interpretation, biopsy, and basic pathology results, enabling facility and physician comparison for quality improvement. However, NMD lacks treatment and clinical outcomes data. The network of state cancer registries (CRs) contains detailed pathologic, treatment, and clinical outcomes data. This pilot study assessed electronic linkage of NMD and CR data at a multicenter institution as proof of concept. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We obtained Quality Oversight Committee approval for this retrospective study. Data of patients diagnosed with breast cancer in 2014 and 2015 were retrieved from our NMD-approved radiology information system (RIS) and matched with reportable patients in our CR using social security number (SSN), first name (fname), last name (lname), and date of birth (DOB). Matching was repeated without SSN. Percentage and reasons for mismatch were evaluated. RESULTS: The RIS query identified 1,316 patients. CR linkage was 99.2% successful (n = 1,305 of 1,316) using SSN, fname, lname, and DOB. Eleven mismatches included four CR case-finding failures, one NMD fname error, five nonreportable in the CR, and one with correct identifiers in both databases. Without SSN, linkage was 97.3% successful (n = 1,281 of 1,316); name errors accounted for 19 and DOB accounted for 5 additional mismatches. CONCLUSION: Using common data elements, linkage between the NMD and state CRs may be feasible and could provide critical outcomes information to advance accurate assessment of breast imaging in the United States.