Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Preoperative Evaluation of Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Purpose: Preoperative breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is known to detect additional cancers that are occult on mammography and ultrasound. There is debate as to whether these additional lesions affect clinical outcomes. The objective of this systematic review was to summarize the evidence on whether additional information on disease extent obtained with preoperative breast MRI in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer affects surgical management, rates of recurrence, survival, re-excision, and early detection of bilateral cancer. Methods: Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched until January 2021 (partial update July 2022) for studies comparing outcomes with versus without pre-operative MRI. Included were both randomized controlled trials and other comparative studies provided MRI and control groups had equivalent disease and patient characteristics or methods such as multivariable analysis or propensity score matching were used to control potential confounders. Results: The search resulted in 26,399 citations, of which 8 randomized control trials, 1 prospective cohort study, and 42 retrospective studies met the inclusion criteria. Use of MRI resulted in decreased rates of reoperations (OR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.63 to 0.85), re-excisions (OR = 0.63, 95% CI = 0.45 to 0.89), and recurrence (HR = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.65 to 0.90). Increased detection of synchronous contralateral breast cancers led to a reduction in metachronous contralateral breast cancer (HR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.59 to 0.85). Hazard ratios for recurrence-free and overall survival were 0.77 (95% CI = 0.53 to 1.12) and 0.89 (95% CI = 0.74 to 1.07). Conclusion: This systematic review indicates substantial benefits of pre-operative breast MRI in decreasing reoperations and recurrence.

Preoperative Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging: An Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) Clinical Practice Guideline.

BACKGROUND: The use of preoperative breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) after the diagnosis of breast cancer by mammography and/or ultrasound is inconsistent. METHODS: After conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing preoperative breast MRI versus no MRI, we reconvened to prepare a clinical practice guideline on this topic. RESULTS: Based on the evidence that MRI improved recurrence, decreased the rates of reoperations (re-excisions or conversion mastectomy), and increased detection of synchronous contralateral breast cancer, we recommend that preoperative breast MRI should be considered on a case-by-case basis in patients diagnosed with breast cancer for whom additional information about disease extent could influence treatment. Based on stronger evidence, preoperative breast MRI is recommended in patients diagnosed with invasive lobular carcinoma for whom additional information about disease extent could influence treatment. For both recommendations, the decision to proceed with MRI would be conditional on shared decision-making between care providers and the patient, taking into account the benefits and risks of MRI as well as patient preferences. Based on the opinion of the Working Group, preoperative breast MRI is also recommended in the following more specific situations: (a) to aid in surgical planning of breast conserving surgery in patients with suspected or known multicentric or multifocal disease; (b) to identify additional lesions in patients with dense breasts; (c) to determine the presence of pectoralis major muscle/chest wall invasion in patients with posteriorly located tumours or when invasion of the pectoralis major muscle or chest wall is suspected; (d) to aid in surgical planning for skin/nipple-sparing mastectomies, autologous reconstruction, oncoplastic surgery, and breast conserving surgery with suspected nipple/areolar involvement; and (e) in patients with familial/hereditary breast cancer but who have not had recent breast MRI as part of screening or diagnosis.

High Risk Breast Cancer Screening is a Double Edged Sword: A Qualitative Study of Patient Perspectives on the Ontario High Risk Breast Cancer Screening Program.

BACKGROUND: MRI-based breast cancer screening for high-risk women has been associated with false positives. This study explored the benefits and drawbacks of MRI-based screening using in-depth patient interviews. METHODS: This was a qualitative study of interviews with women participating in the High Risk Ontario Breast Screening Program. Women enrolled at two centers who had completed at least one round of screening were invited to participate. Recruitment was suspended when thematic saturation was reached. Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted and transcribed verbatim. Emergent themes were identified and a coding framework established. RESULTS: 21 women (median age 41 years) participated in telephone interviews. Women had been in the program a median of 4 years (IQR 1-5), and 71% had experienced at least one abnormal screen. Eight participants (38%) had undergone biopsies. Six women (29%) were BRCA mutation carriers. MRIs were described as intimidating, uncomfortable, and claustrophobic. Participants were concerned about long-term exposure to gadolinium contrast. Compared to MRI, mammography alone was viewed as painful, less sensitive, and a "useless…waste of time." MRI provided a "psychological safety net" that outweighed the distress associated with abnormal screens. Many women accepted this trade-off as a "two-edged sword" that was "worth it" and provided a sense of control. Suggestions for improvement included more information regarding the risks of MRI, and access to counselling. CONCLUSIONS: Women participating in MRI-based screening strongly value reassurance from a highly sensitive screening test. This outweighed the distress of abnormal screens. There are areas for improvement around patient communication and psychosocial support.

Management of MRI-Detected Benign Internal Mammary Lymph Nodes.

Introduction In this retrospective study, we aimed to evaluate benign internal mammary lymph nodes (IMLNs) in terms of frequency, number, size, long axis/short axis (L/S) ratio, intercostal location, presence of fatty hilum, and stability using breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and discuss the findings by reviewing existing literature. Methods This single-center study consisted of 130 women between the ages of 24 and 76 years, who had at least two breast MRI examinations in our institution, with the latest exam performed between January 1, 2019 and November 1, 2019, were eligible for the study. MRIs of the study group were independently reviewed by two radiologists. Results IMLN was detected in 31.1% of the 427 MRIs, with a total number of 256 nodes. The most common indication for breast MRI was high-risk screening (66.2%). The median number of nodes per patient was 1 (range: 1-6). The median follow-up time was 19.5 months (range: 6-141 months). None of these benign nodes showed significant interval growth. Mean L/R ratio of the nodes was 1.9. One hundred and four nodes ( n = 104, 40.6%) had a L/S ratio less than 2 and 43.2% ( n = 45) of the nodes with a L/S ratio less than 2, had a long axis measuring less than or equal to 3mm. IMLN of patients with breast implants had the largest mean long axis. The fatty hilum was identified in 34.3% ( n = 68) of the 256 nodes. The size of the lymph nodes where fatty hilum was visualized was significantly larger than the ones where fatty hilum was not visualized ( p < 0.001). Fatty hilum could be visualized in only 2.7% of the nodes with a long axis smaller than 3 mm. Conclusion IMLN is a frequent finding on breast MRI. We have shown that benign IMLNs might be large sized in specific cases like patients with breast implants. When small sized (≤3mm), they are more likely to be rounded (L/S ratio <2). The fatty hilum that is a feature of benignity might not be visualized in nodes less than or equal to3mm.

Annual Mammographic Screening Reduces the Risk of Interval or Higher Stage Invasive Breast Cancers Among Postmenopausal Women in the Ontario Breast Screening Program.

Purpose: In the Ontario Breast Screening Program (OBSP) annual screening improved breast cancer detection for women 50-74 years with a family/personal history compared to biennial, while detection was equivalent for women screened annually for mammographic density ≥75%. This study compares the risk of interval or higher stage invasive cancers among postmenopausal women screened annually vs biennially by age and estrogen use. Methods: A retrospective design identified 4247 invasive breast cancers diagnosed among concurrent cohorts of women 50-74 screened in the OBSP with digital mammography between 2011 and 2014, followed until 2016. Polytomous logistic regression estimated the risk of interval or higher stage breast cancers by age and estrogen use between women screened annually because of first-degree relative with breast or ovarian cancer or personal history of ovarian cancer, or mammographic density ≥75%, and those screened biennially. Results: The risk of interval vs screen-detected cancers was significantly reduced in women screened annually for family/personal history (OR=.64; 95%CI:0.51-.80), particularly those 60-74 years (OR=.59; 95%CI:0.45-.77) or not currently using estrogen (OR=.66; 95%CI:0.52-.83) compared to those screened biennially. The risk of stage II-IV vs stage I tumors was also lower in women 60-74 years screened annually for family/personal history (OR=.79; 95%CI:0.64-.97) and in those screened annually for mammographic density ≥75% currently using estrogen (OR=.51; 95%CI:0.26-1.01) compared to women screened biennially. Conclusion: Postmenopausal women at increased risk screened annually had equivalent or reduced risks of interval or higher stage invasive breast cancers than those screened biennially, further supporting risk-based screening in this population.

Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Potential Benefits in Routine Clinical Practice.

Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is gradually being implemented in routine clinical breast imaging practice. The technique of image acquisition reduces the confounding effect of overlapping breast tissue, which substantially affects cancer detection, abnormal recall, and interval cancer rates in a screening/ surveillance setting. In a diagnostic setting, tomosynthesis also allows for improved lesion localization and characterization over conventional imaging, which potentially improves the accuracy and improved workflow efficiency. To optimize the utility of tomosynthesis, imagers should be aware of the pertinent aspects of image acquisition as it relates to interpretation, the appearance of benign and malignant pathologies, and sources of possible misinterpretation. This article aims to provide a practical knowledge base of DBT and demonstrate its potential benefits when incorporated into routine clinical practice.

Diagnostic interval for non-screening patients undergoing mammography during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a temporary cessation of mammography screening. However, in some facilities, diagnostic breast imaging services continued for patients with a high clinical suspicion of breast cancer. The objective of this study was to evaluate changes in the diagnostic interval (DI) of non-screening patients presenting for diagnostic mammography during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Retrospective chart review was performed on patients presenting for non-screening diagnostic mammography from April 1 to June 30, 2020 (pandemic group) and April 1 to June 30, 2019 (pre-pandemic group). Age, reason for referral, number and type of imaging studies/biopsies necessary for a final diagnosis were recorded. Diagnostic interval (DI) was defined as the number of days from the date of the diagnostic mammogram to the date of the final diagnosis. RESULTS: Compared to the pre-pandemic group (n = 64), the pandemic group (n = 77) showed a reduction in DI of the entire cohort (pandemic: 1 day; pre-pandemic: 15 days, p < 0.0001) for patients not requiring tissue sampling (pandemic: 1 day; pre-pandemic: 11 days, .p < 0.0001) and those requiring tissue sampling with benign pathology (pandemic 9 days; pre-pandemic, 33 days, p = 0.0002). A higher percentage of patients in the pandemic group had their assessment completed during the initial visit (pandemic: 50.6%; pre-pandemic: 23.4%, p = 0.0009). CONCLUSION: During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, the DI for patients with non-screening-related diagnostic mammography was significantly shorter, with a higher percentage of patients completing their assessments on the initial visit, compared to one year prior. KEY POINTS: • Despite reductions in manpower and clinical services, during pandemic times, it is possible to maintain a diagnostic breast imaging service for women at high clinical suspicion for breast cancer. • During pandemic times, breast imaging departments should consider restructuring to a Rapid Diagnostic Unit model with a navigation team that follows patients through the assessment process to a final diagnosis. • Departmental restructuring and patient navigation during pandemic times could either maintain or shorten the diagnostic interval for patients presenting for diagnostic mammography.

Psychological consequences of MRI-based screening among women with strong family histories of breast cancer.

PURPOSE: MRI-based screening in women with a ≥ 25% lifetime risk of breast cancer , but no identifiable genetic mutations may be associated with false positives. This study examined the psychological impact of abnormal screens and biopsies in non-mutation carriers participating in high-risk screening with no personal history of breast cancer. METHODS: Non-mutation carriers participating in the High-Risk Ontario Breast Screening Program at two sites were mailed demographic surveys, psychological scales, and chart review consent. Scales included the Consequences of Screening in Breast Cancer questionnaire, Lerman Breast Cancer Worry Scale, and Worry Interference Scale. Missing data were managed with multiple imputation. Multivariable regression was used to assess whether abnormal screens or biopsies were associated with adverse psychological effects. RESULTS: After contacting 465 participants, 169 non-mutation carriers were included. Median age was 46 years (range 30-65). Over a median 3 years of screening, 63.9% of women experienced at least one abnormal screen, and 24.9% underwent biopsies. Statements relating to cancer worry/anxiety scored highest, with 19.5% indicating they worried "a lot". Higher scores among anxiety-related statements were strongly associated with higher dejection scores. Overall, coping and daily functioning were preserved. Women indicated some positive reactions to screening, including improved existential values and reassurance they do not have breast cancer. Abnormal screens and biopsies were not significantly associated with any psychological scale, even after adjustment for patient characteristics. CONCLUSION: Non-mutation carriers undergoing MRI-based screening had considerable baseline anxiety and cancer worry, although daily functioning was not impaired. Abnormal screens and biopsies did not appear to have adverse psychological effects.

Abnormal screens among nonmutation carriers in the High Risk Ontario Breast Screening Program.

BACKGROUND: The Ontario Breast Screening Program was expanded in 2011 to offer annual MRI and mammography to women with high-risk genetic mutations (e.g., BRCA1/2) and women with strong family histories and ≥25% estimated lifetime risk of breast cancer. Data to support high-risk screening is less clear in the nonmutation carrier group, as MRI has lower specificity among this population. The potential unintended consequences may be considerable and need to be explored. We aimed to describe the frequency of abnormal screens and biopsies. METHODS: Demographic surveys and chart review consent were sent to a sample of 441 individuals enrolled in a high-risk screening program at two tertiary care hospitals in Toronto, Ontario. Retrospective cross-sectional chart review was undertaken for clinicopathologic data. The frequencies of abnormal screens and biopsies were calculated. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-nine nonmutation carriers were included. The majority were white, employed, and highly educated. The median International Breast Cancer Intervention Study lifetime risk of breast cancer was 28.0% (range 24.5%-89.0%). 108 individuals (64%) experienced at least 1 abnormal screen and 13 (8%) had 3 or more over a median 3 years of screening (range 1-6 years). Of 55 biopsies, 3 (5.5%) were malignant. The cancer detection rate was 8.4/1000 screens (95% CI 3.2-22.4). CONCLUSIONS: An MRI-based screening program for nonmutation carriers was effective at diagnosing breast cancer. However, this population experienced a high rate of abnormal screens and intervention. Further research is needed to improve the performance of MRI-based screening in these women.

Real-time transabdominal ultrasound-guided ERCP is feasible and effective in pregnancy: a case series.

Background and study aims Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is commonly required in pregnancy for choledocholithiasis, however, radiation exposure is a major concern for patients. Real-time transabdominal (TA) ultrasound (US)-guided ERCP is a radiation-free technique that facilitates confirmation of biliary cannulation, equipment exchange and stone clearance. We present the largest Western case series of this modality in pregnancy and a review of the literature. Four pregnant adult patients were referred to our tertiary center with suspected or documented choledocholithiasis and underwent real-time TA US-guided ERCP. US was successfully used to confirm positioning of the guidewire and ductal clearance. Procedures were successful in all patients with resolution of clinical symptoms and no immediate procedural complications. Two patients suffered adverse events later in their pregnancy. Real-time TA US-guided ERCP is a technically feasible and effective modality that can be offered to obtain biliary access in a radiation-free fashion for specific subsets of pregnant patients with choledocholithiasis. Future studies are needed to confirm the safety of this technique.

Annual vs Biennial Screening: Diagnostic Accuracy Among Concurrent Cohorts Within the Ontario Breast Screening Program.

BACKGROUND: The Ontario Breast Screening Program recommends annual mammography to women age 50-74 years at increased risk because of family history of breast or ovarian cancer or personal history of ovarian cancer or mammographic density 75% or greater. Few studies have examined the diagnostic accuracy of recommendations based on risk factors and included screen film as well as digital mammography. METHODS: A retrospective design identified concurrent cohorts of women age 50-74 years screened annually or biennially with digital mammography only between 2011 and 2014 and followed until 2016 or breast cancer diagnosis. Diagnostic accuracy measures were compared between women screened annually because of first-degree relative of breast or ovarian cancer or personal history of ovarian cancer (n = 67 795 women), mammographic density 75% or greater (n = 51 956), or both (n = 3758) and those screened biennially (n = 526 815). The association between recommendation and sensitivity and specificity was assessed using generalized estimating equation models. All P values are two-sided. RESULTS: For annual screening because of family or personal history vs biennial, sensitivity was statistically significantly higher (81.7% vs 70.6%; OR = 1.86, 95% CI = 1.48 to 2.34), particularly for invasive cancers and postmenopausal women. Although there was no statistically significant difference in sensitivity for annual screening for mammographic density 75% or greater, specificity was statistically significantly lower (91.3%; OR = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.80 to 0.96) vs biennial (92.3%), particularly for women age 50-59 years. CONCLUSION: Compared with biennial screening, annual screening improved detection for women with a family or personal history of breast and/or ovarian cancer, supporting screening that is more frequent. The benefit for annual screening for women with higher mammographic density must be weighed against possible harms of increased false positives.

Performance Measures of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Plus Mammography in the High Risk Ontario Breast Screening Program.

BACKGROUND: The Ontario Breast Screening Program expanded in July 2011 to screen high-risk women age 30-69 years with annual magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and digital mammography. This study examined the benefits of screening with mammography and MRI by age and risk criteria. METHODS: This prospective cohort study included 8782 women age 30-69 years referred to the High Risk Ontario Breast Screening Program from July 2011 to June 2015, with final results to December 2016. Cancer detection rates, sensitivity, and specificity of MRI and mammography combined were compared with each modality individually within risk groups stratified by age using generalized estimating equation models. Prognostic features of screen-detected breast cancers were compared by modality using Fisher exact test. All P values are two-sided. RESULTS: Among 20 053 screening episodes, there were 280 screen-detected breast cancers (cancer detection rate = 14.0 per 1000, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 12.4 to 15.7). The sensitivity of mammography was statistically significantly lower than that of MRI plus mammography (40.8%, 95% CI = 29.3% to 53.5% vs 96.0%, 95% CI = 92.2% to 98.0%, P < .001). In mutation carriers age 30-39 years, sensitivity of the combination was comparable with MRI alone (100.0% vs 96.8%, 95% CI = 79.2% to 100.0%, P = .99) but with statistically significantly decreased specificity (78.0%, 95% CI = 74.7% to 80.9% vs 86.2%, 95% CI = 83.5% to 88.5%, P < .001). In women age 50-69 years, combining MRI and mammography statistically significantly increased sensitivity compared with MRI alone (96.3%, 95% CI = 90.6% to 98.6% vs 90.9%, 95% CI = 83.6% to 95.1%, P = .02), with a small but statistically significant decrease in specificity (84.2%, 95% CI = 83.1% to 85.2% vs 90.0%, 95% CI = 89.2% to 90.9%, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Screening high risk women age 30-39 years with annual MRI only may be sufficient for cancer detection and should be evaluated further, particularly for mutation carriers. Among women age 50-69 years, detection is most effective when mammography is included with annual MRI.

Breast cancer risk and breast screening for trans people: an integration of 3 systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Trans people face uncertain risk for breast cancer and barriers to accessing breast screening. Our objectives were to identify and synthesize primary research evidence on the effect of cross-sex hormones (CSHs) on breast cancer risk, prognosis and mortality among trans people, the benefits and harms of breast screening in this population, and existing clinical practice recommendations on breast screening for trans people. METHODS: We conducted 2 systematic reviews of primary research, 1 on the effect of CSHs on breast cancer risk, prognosis and mortality, and the other on the benefits and harms of breast screening, and a third systematic review of guidelines on existing screening recommendations for trans people. We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and grey literature sources for primary research, guidelines and position statements published in English between 1997 and 2017. Citations were screened by 2 independent reviewers. One reviewer extracted data and assessed methodological quality of included articles; a second reviewer verified these in full. The results were synthesized narratively. RESULTS: Four observational studies, 6 guidelines and 5 position statements were included. Observational evidence of very low certainty did not show an effect of CSHs on breast cancer risk in trans men or trans women. Among trans women, painfulness of mammography and ultrasonography was low. There was no evidence on the effect of CSHs on breast cancer prognosis and mortality, or on benefits and other harms of screening. Existing clinical practice documents recommended screening for distinct trans subpopulations; however, recommendations varied. INTERPRETATION: The limited evidence does not show an effect of CSHs on breast cancer risk. Although there is insufficient evidence to determine the potential benefits and harms of breast screening, existing clinical practice documents generally recommend screening for trans people; further large-scale prospective comparative research is needed.

Comparison of wait times across the breast cancer treatment pathway among screened women undergoing organized breast assessment versus usual care.

OBJECTIVE: The benefit of organized breast assessment on wait times to treatment among asymptomatic women is unknown. The Ontario Breast Screening Program (OBSP) offers screening and organized assessment through Breast Assessment Centres (BAC). This study compares wait times across the treatment pathway among screened women diagnosed with breast cancer through BAC and usual care (UC). METHODS: A retrospective design identified two concurrent cohorts of postmenopausal women aged 50-69 within the OBSP diagnosed with screen-detected invasive breast cancer and assessed in BAC (n = 2010) and UC (n = 1844) between 2002 and 2010. Demographic characteristics were obtained from the OBSP. Medical chart abstraction provided prognostic and treatment data. Multinomial logistic regression examined associations of assessment type with wait times from abnormal mammogram to surgery, chemotherapy or radiotherapy. RESULTS: Compared with through UC, postmenopausal women diagnosed through BAC were significantly less likely to have longer wait times (days) from an abnormal mammogram to definitive surgery (> 89 vs. ≤ 47; OR = 0.63; 95% CI = 0.52-0.77), from final surgery to radiotherapy (> 88 vs. ≤ 55; OR = 0.71; 95% CI = 0.54-0.93) and from final chemotherapy to radiotherapy (> 41 vs. ≤ 28; OR = 0.52; 95% CI = 0.36-0.76). Conversely, women assessed through BAC compared with through UC were more likely to experience longer wait times from final surgery to chemotherapy (> 64 vs. ≤ 40; OR = 1.49; 95% CI = 1.04-2.14). CONCLUSION: Shorter wait times to most treatments for postmenopausal women diagnosed in BAC further supports that women with an abnormal mammogram should be managed through organized assessment. Continued evaluation of factors influencing wait times to treatment is essential for quality improvement and patient outcomes.

The impact of organized breast assessment on survival by stage for screened women diagnosed with invasive breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Since 1998, the Ontario Breast Screening Program (OBSP) has offered organized assessment through Breast Assessment Centres (BAC). This study compares survival between screened women diagnosed with breast cancer who have undergone assessment through a BAC and usual care (UC). METHODS: A retrospective design identified two concurrent cohorts of women aged 50 to 69 within the OBSP diagnosed with screen-detected invasive breast cancer at a BAC (n = 2010) and UC (n = 1844) between 2002 and 2010 and followed until 2016. Demographic and assessment characteristics were obtained from the OBSP. Abstraction of medical charts provided prognostic and treatment data. Death data were assessed from the Registered Person's Database and the Ontario Registrar General All-Cause Mortality File. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models compared overall survival by assessment type (BAC/UC), stratified by stage. RESULTS: There were 505 deaths during the study (BAC = 239; UC = 266). Among women with stage I screen-detected breast cancer, those diagnosed through a BAC had 31% reduced risk of all-cause mortality (HR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.53-0.90) compared to UC. Diagnosis within 7 weeks of an abnormal mammogram reduced the hazard of death from all causes by 34% among all women with stage I breast cancers (HR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.47-0.91), and was more likely in BAC (79.7%) than UC (66.9%). CONCLUSION: The significant improvement in overall survival for women with stage I screen-detected invasive breast cancer assessed through BACs further supports the recommendation that women with abnormal mammograms should be managed through organized assessment.

Genetic assessment wait time indicators in the High Risk Ontario Breast Screening Program.

BACKGROUND: The Ontario Breast Screening Program (OBSP) expanded in July 2011 to screen high-risk women aged 30-69 with annual MRI and mammography. This study evaluated wait time (WT) indicators along the genetic assessment (GA) pathway for women referred to the High Risk OBSP. METHODS: Information was collected for 27,170 women referred to the High Risk OBSP from July 2011 to June 2015 and followed for GA until June 2016. Median duration (days), interquartile range (IQR) were measured for each WT indicator by program year, age, prior breast cancer, and risk criteria. RESULTS: Among 24,811 women who completed GA, 16,367 (66.0%) had genetic counseling only, 8,444 (34.0%) had counseling and testing and 8,027 (32.4%) met the high risk criteria. Median WT from physician visit to first screen was longer for women having genetic counseling only compared to those having counseling and testing (244 vs. 197 days). Women having counseling only also experienced the longest WT from physician visit to genetic counseling (88 days; IQR = 10-174), which increased by year from 71 to 100 days (p < .0001). Among women having counseling and testing, WT from physician visit to counseling was shortest for mutation carriers (39 days; IQR = 4-100). Median WT from testing to laboratory report issue was 41 days (IQR = 22-70) and 17 days to disclosure of test results (IQR = 7-33). Both WTs decreased with year and were shorter for mutation carriers (33 days, IQR = 19-58; 15 days, IQR = 7-28, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: After implementation of the High Risk OBSP, women received timely genetic counseling, in particular those having counseling and testing. Effective triage models for physicians could reduce WT to GA after physician referral.

Breast screening for survivors of breast cancer: A systematic review.

There is a large and growing population of women who have a personal history of breast cancer (PHBC). This systematic review was undertaken to explore the outcomes of surveillance mammography in breast cancer survivors, and to examine the evidence for screening these women within an organized population-based screening program. We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL Issue 6, 2015), OVID MEDLINE and EMBASE (January 2012 to June 22, 2015) for English-language studies of surveillance of the target population. A study author extracted study outcomes, which were audited by a research assistant. One systematic review and 5 primary studies were included. These showed that surveillance mammography may reduce breast cancer-specific mortality through early/asymptomatic detection (Hazard Ratio for those without compared to with symptoms:HR: 0.64, 95% CI 0.55 - 0.74). Three studies showed that semi-annual mammography is likely not of greater benefit than annual mammography. No evidence was found to suggest that surveillance mammography for women with a PHBC should not be conducted within an organized screening program. The small evidence-base had a high level of heterogeneity in populations, interventions and outcomes. Based on this review, organized screening programs should reassess their guidelines on surveillance mammography and consider including women with a PHBC.

Evaluating wait times from screening to breast cancer diagnosis among women undergoing organised assessment vs usual care.

BACKGROUND: Timely coordinated diagnostic assessment following an abnormal screening mammogram reduces patient anxiety and may optimise breast cancer prognosis. Since 1998, the Ontario Breast Screening Program (OBSP) has offered organised assessment through Breast Assessment Centres (BACs). For OBSP women seen at a BAC, an abnormal mammogram is followed by coordinated referrals through the use of navigators for further imaging, biopsy, and surgical consultation as indicated. For OBSP women seen through usual care (UC), further diagnostic imaging is arranged directly from the screening centre and/or through their physician; results must be communicated to the physician who is then responsible for arranging any necessary biopsy and/or surgical consultation. This study aims to evaluate factors associated with diagnostic wait times for women undergoing assessment through BAC and UC. METHODS: Of the 2 147 257 women aged 50-69 years screened in the OBSP between 1 January 2002 and 31 December 2009, 155 866 (7.3%) had an abnormal mammogram. A retrospective design identified two concurrent cohorts of women diagnosed with screen-detected breast cancer at a BAC (n=4217; 47%) and UC (n=4827; 53%). Multivariable logistic regression analyses examined associations between wait times and assessment and prognostic characteristics by pathway. A two-sided 5% significance level was used. RESULTS: Screened women with breast cancer were two times more likely to be diagnosed within 7 weeks when assessed through a BAC vs UC (OR=1.91, 95% CI=1.73-2.10). In addition, compared with UC, women assessed through a BAC were significantly more likely to have their first assessment procedure within 3 weeks of their abnormal mammogram (OR=1.25, 95% CI=1.12-1.39), ⩽3 assessment procedures (OR=1.54, 95% CI=1.41-1.69), ⩽2 assessment visits (OR=1.86, 95% CI=1.70-2.05), and ⩾2 procedures per visit (OR=1.41, 95% CI=1.28-1.55). Women diagnosed through a BAC were also more likely than those in UC to have imaging (OR=1.99, 95% CI=1.44-2.75) or a biopsy (OR=3.69, 95% CI=2.64-5.15) vs consultation only at their first assessment visit, and two times more likely to have a core or FNA biopsy than a surgical biopsy (OR=2.08, 95% CI=1.81-2.40). Having ⩽2 assessment visits was more likely to reduce time to diagnosis for women assessed through a BAC compared with UC (BAC OR=10.58, 95% CI=8.96-12.50; UC OR=4.47, 95% CI=3.94-5.07), as was having ⩽3 assessment procedures (BAC OR=4.97, 95% CI=4.26-5.79; UC OR=2.95, 95% CI=2.61-3.33). Income quintile affected wait times only in women diagnosed in UC, with those in the two highest quintiles more likely to receive a diagnosis in 7 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Women with screen-detected breast cancer in OBSP were more likely to have shorter wait times if they were diagnosed through organised assessment. This might be as a result of women diagnosed through a BAC having more procedures per visit, procedures scheduled in shorter intervals, and imaging or biopsy on their first visit. Given the significant improvement in timeliness to diagnosis, women with abnormal mammograms should be managed through organised assessment.

Digital Compared with Screen-Film Mammography: Measures of Diagnostic Accuracy among Women Screened in the Ontario Breast Screening Program.

PURPOSE: To compare measures of diagnostic accuracy between large concurrent cohorts of women screened with digital computed radiography (CR), direct radiography (DR), and screen-film mammography (SFM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was approved by the University of Toronto Research Ethics Board; informed consent was not required. Three concurrent cohorts of women aged 50-74 years who were screened from 2008-2009 in the Ontario Breast Screening Program with SFM (487,334 screening examinations, 403,688 women), DR (254,758 screening examinations, 220,520 women), or CR (74,140 screening examinations, 64,210 women) were followed for 2 years or until breast cancer diagnosis. Breast cancers were classified as screening-detected or interval on the basis of the woman's final screening and assessment results. Interval cancer rate (per 10 000 negative screening examinations), sensitivity, and specificity were compared across the cohorts by using mixed-effects logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Interval cancer rates were higher, although not significantly so, for CR (15.2 per 10,000; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 12.8, 17.8) and were similar for DR (13.7 per 10,000; 95% CI: 12.4, 15.0) compared with SFM (13.0 per 10,000; 95% CI: 12.1, 13.9). For CR versus SFM, specificity was similar while sensitivity was significantly lower (odds ratio [OR] = 0.62; 95% CI: 0.47, 0.83; P = .001), particularly for invasive cancers detected at a rescreening examination, for women with breast density of less than 75%, for women with no family history, and for postmenopausal women. For DR versus SFM, sensitivity was similar while specificity was lower (OR = 0.92; 95% CI: 0.87, 0.98; P = .01), particularly for rescreening examinations, for women aged 60-74 years, for women with breast density of less than 75%, for women with a family history, and for women who were postmenopausal. CONCLUSION: Given the 38% lower sensitivity of CR imaging systems compared with SFM, programs should assess the continued use of this technology for breast screening.

Digital versus screen-film mammography: impact of mammographic density and hormone therapy on breast cancer detection.

Most studies that have examined the effects of mammographic density and hormone therapy use on breast cancer detection have included screen-film mammography. This study further examines this association in post-menopausal women screened by digital mammography. Approved by the University of Toronto Research Ethics Board, this study identified 688,418 women of age 50-74 years screened with digital or screen-film mammography from 2008 to 2009 within the Ontario Breast Screening Program. Of 2993 eligible women with invasive breast cancer, 2450 were contacted and 1421 participated (847 screen-film mammography, 574 digital direct radiography). Mammographic density was measured by study radiologists using the standard BI-RADS classification system and by a computer-assisted method. Information on hormone therapy use was collected by a telephone-administered questionnaire. Logistic regression and two-tailed tests for significance evaluated associations between factors and detection method by mammography type. Women with >75 % radiologist-measured mammographic density compared to those with <25 % were more likely to be diagnosed with an interval than screen-detected cancer, with the difference being greater for those screened with screen-film (OR = 6.40, 95 % CI 2.30-17.85) than digital mammography (OR = 2.41, 95 % CI 0.67-8.58) and aged 50-64 years screened with screen-film mammography (OR = 10.86, 95 % CI 2.96-39.57). Recent former hormone therapy users were also at an increased risk of having an interval cancer with the association being significant for women screened with digital mammography (OR = 2.08, 95 % CI 1.17-3.71). Breast screening using digital mammography lowers the risk of having an interval cancer for post-menopausal women aged 50-64 with greater mammographic density.