Long-term cardiovascular disease risk after anthracycline and trastuzumab treatments in U.S. breast cancer survivors.

BACKGROUND: Although breast cancer survivors are at risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) from treatment late effects, evidence to inform long-term and age-specific cardiovascular surveillance recommendations is lacking. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 10,211 women diagnosed with first primary unilateral breast cancer in Kaiser Permanente Washington or Colorado (aged 20+, survived ≥1 year). We estimated multivariable adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) for associations between initial chemotherapy regimen type (anthracycline and/or trastuzumab, other chemotherapies, no chemotherapy [reference]) and CVD risk, adjusted for patient characteristics, other treatments, and CVD risk factors. Cumulative incidence was calculated considering competing events. RESULTS: After 5.79 median years, 14.67% of women developed CVD (cardiomyopathy/heart failure (CM/HF), ischemic heart disease (IHD), stroke). Women treated with anthracyclines and/or trastuzumab had a higher risk of CVD compared with no chemotherapy (aHR=1.53,95%CI=1.31-1.79), persisting 5+years post-diagnosis (aHR5-<10 years=1.85,95%CI=1.44-2.39;aHR10+ years=1.83,95%CI=1.34-2.49). CM/HF risks were elevated among women treated with anthracyclines and/or trastuzumab compared with no chemotherapy, especially for ages<65 (aHR20-54years=2.97,95%CI=1.72-5.12;aHR55-64years=2.21,95%CI=1.52-3.21), differing for older women (aHR65+years=1.32,95%CI=0.97-1.78), and 5+years post-diagnosis (aHR5-<10years=1.89,95%CI=1.35-2.64;aHR10+years=2.21,95%CI=1.52-3.20). Anthracyclines and/or trastuzumab receipt was associated with increased IHD risks after 5+years (aHR5-<10years=1.51,95%CI=1.06-2.14;aHR10+years=1.86,95%CI=1.18-2.93) with no clear age effects, and stroke risk (aHR=1.33,95%CI=1.05-1.69) which did not vary by time or age. There was some evidence of long-term CM/HF and IHD risks with other chemotherapies. Among women aged<65 treated with anthracyclines and/or trastuzumab, up to 16% developed CVD by 10-years (20-54=6.91%;55-64=16.00%), driven by CM/HF (20-54=3.90%;55-64=9.78%). CONCLUSIONS: We found increased long-term risks of CM/HF and IHD among breast cancer survivors treated with anthracyclines and/or trastuzumab, and increased CM/HF risk among women aged<65.

Methodology for Using Real-World Data From Electronic Health Records to Assess Chemotherapy Administration in Women With Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: Identification of patients' intended chemotherapy regimens is critical to most research questions conducted in the real-world setting of cancer care. Yet, these data are not routinely available in electronic health records (EHRs) at the specificity required to address these questions. We developed a methodology to identify patients' intended regimens from EHR data in the Optimal Breast Cancer Chemotherapy Dosing (OBCD) study. METHODS: In women older than 18 years, diagnosed with primary stage I-IIIA breast cancer at Kaiser Permanente Northern California (2006-2019), we categorized participants into 24 drug combinations described in National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for breast cancer treatment. Participants were categorized into 50 guideline chemotherapy administration schedules within these combinations using an iterative algorithm process, followed by chart abstraction where necessary. We also identified patients intended to receive nonguideline administration schedules within guideline drug combinations and nonguideline drug combinations. This process was adapted at Kaiser Permanente Washington using abstracted data (2004-2015). RESULTS: In the OBCD cohort, 13,231 women received adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy, of whom 10,213 (77%) had their intended regimen identified via the algorithm, 2,416 (18%) had their intended regimen identified via abstraction, and 602 (4.5%) could not be identified. Across guideline drug combinations, 111 nonguideline dosing schedules were used, alongside 61 nonguideline drug combinations. A number of factors were associated with requiring abstraction for regimen determination, including: decreasing neighborhood household income, earlier diagnosis year, later stage, nodal status, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)+ status. CONCLUSION: We describe the challenges and approaches to operationalize complex, real-world data to identify intended chemotherapy regimens in large, observational studies. This methodology can improve efficiency of use of large-scale clinical data in real-world populations, helping answer critical questions to improve care delivery and patient outcomes.

Predicting five-year interval second breast cancer risk in women with prior breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Annual surveillance mammography is recommended for women with a personal history of breast cancer. Risk prediction models that estimate mammography failures such as interval second breast cancers could help to tailor surveillance imaging regimens to women's individual risk profiles. METHODS: In a cohort of women with a history of breast cancer receiving surveillance mammography in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium in 1996-2019, we used LASSO-penalized regression to estimate the probability of an interval second cancer (invasive cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ) in the one-year following a negative surveillance mammogram. Based on predicted risks from this one-year risk model, we generated cumulative risks of an interval second cancer for the five-year period following each mammogram. Model performance was evaluated using cross-validation in the overall cohort and within race and ethnicity strata. RESULTS: In 173,290 surveillance mammograms, we observed 496 interval cancers. One-year risk models were well-calibrated (expected/observed ratio = 1.00) with good accuracy (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.64). Model performance was similar across race and ethnicity groups. The median five-year cumulative risk was 1.20% (interquartile range 0.93-1.63%). Median five-year risks were highest in women who were under age 40 or pre- or peri-menopausal at diagnosis and those with estrogen receptor-negative primary breast cancers. CONCLUSIONS: Our risk model identified women at high risk of interval second breast cancers who may benefit from additional surveillance imaging modalities. Risk models should be evaluated to determine if risk-guided supplemental surveillance imaging improves early detection and decreases surveillance failures.

Temporal changes in mammographic breast density and breast cancer risk among women with benign breast disease.

INTRODUCTION: Benign breast disease (BBD) and high mammographic breast density (MBD) are prevalent and independent risk factors for invasive breast cancer. It has been suggested that temporal changes in MBD may impact future invasive breast cancer risk, but this has not been studied among women with BBD. METHODS: We undertook a nested case-control study within a cohort of 15,395 women with BBD in Kaiser Permanente Northwest (KPNW; 1970-2012, followed through mid-2015). Cases (n = 261) developed invasive breast cancer > 1 year after BBD diagnosis, whereas controls (n = 249) did not have breast cancer by the case diagnosis date. Cases and controls were individually matched on BBD diagnosis age and plan membership duration. Standardized %MBD change (per 2 years), categorized as stable/any increase (≥ 0%), minimal decrease of less than 5% or a decrease greater than or equal to 5%, was determined from baseline and follow-up mammograms. Associations between MBD change and breast cancer risk were examined using adjusted unconditional logistic regression. RESULTS: Overall, 64.5% (n = 329) of BBD patients had non-proliferative and 35.5% (n = 181) had proliferative disease with/without atypia. Women with an MBD decrease (≤ - 5%) were less likely to develop breast cancer (Odds Ratio (OR) 0.64; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.38, 1.07) compared with women with minimal decreases. Associations were stronger among women ≥ 50 years at BBD diagnosis (OR 0.48; 95% CI 0.25, 0.92) and with proliferative BBD (OR 0.32; 95% CI 0.11, 0.99). DISCUSSION: Assessment of temporal MBD changes may inform risk monitoring among women with BBD, and strategies to actively reduce MBD may help decrease future breast cancer risk.

Protocol to measure validity and reliability of colorectal, breast, cervical and lung cancer screening questions from the 2021 National Health Interview Survey: Methodology and design.

Previous studies demonstrate that self-reports of mammography screening for breast cancer and colonoscopy screening for colorectal cancer demonstrate concordance, based on adherence to screening guidelines, with electronic medical records (EMRs) in over 90% of those interviewed, as well as high sensitivity and specificity, and can be used for monitoring our Healthy People goals. However, for screening tests for cervical and lung cancers, and for various sub-populations, concordance between self-report and EMRs has been noticeably lower with poor sensitivity or specificity. This study aims to test the validity and reliability of lung, colorectal, cervical, and breast cancer screening questions from the 2021 and 2022 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS). We present the protocol for a study designed to measure the validity and reliability of the NHIS cancer screening questions compared to EMRs from four US-based healthcare systems. We planned a randomized trial of a phone- vs web-based survey with NHIS questions that were previously revised based on extensive cognitive interviewing. Our planned sample size will be 1576 validity interviews, and 1260 interviews randomly assigned at 1 or 3 months after the initial interview. We are enrolling people eligible for cancer screening based on age, sex, and smoking history per US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations. We will evaluate question validity using concordance, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and report-to-records ratio. We further are randomizing participants to complete a second survey 1 vs 3 months later to assess question reliability. We suggest that typical measures of concordance may need to be reconsidered in evaluating cancer screening questions.

Evaluation of Algorithms Using Automated Health Plan Data to Identify Breast Cancer Recurrences.

BACKGROUND: We updated algorithms to identify breast cancer recurrences from administrative data, extending previously developed methods. METHODS: In this validation study, we evaluated pairs of breast cancer recurrence algorithms (vs. individual algorithms) to identify recurrences. We generated algorithm combinations that categorized discordant algorithm results as no recurrence [High Specificity and PPV (positive predictive value) Combination] or recurrence (High Sensitivity Combination). We compared individual and combined algorithm results to manually abstracted recurrence outcomes from a sample of 600 people with incident stage I-IIIA breast cancer diagnosed between 2004 and 2015. We used Cox regression to evaluate risk factors associated with age- and stage-adjusted recurrence rates using different recurrence definitions, weighted by inverse sampling probabilities. RESULTS: Among 600 people, we identified 117 recurrences using the High Specificity and PPV Combination, 505 using the High Sensitivity Combination, and 118 using manual abstraction. The High Specificity and PPV Combination had good specificity [98%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 97-99] and PPV (72%, 95% CI: 63-80) but modest sensitivity (64%, 95% CI: 44-80). The High Sensitivity Combination had good sensitivity (80%, 95% CI: 49-94) and specificity (83%, 95% CI: 80-86) but low PPV (29%, 95% CI: 25-34). Recurrence rates using combined algorithms were similar in magnitude for most risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: By combining algorithms, we identified breast cancer recurrences with greater PPV than individual algorithms, without additional review of discordant records. IMPACT: Researchers should consider tradeoffs between accuracy and manual chart abstraction resources when using previously developed algorithms. We provided guidance for future studies that use breast cancer recurrence algorithms with or without supplemental manual chart abstraction.

Assessment of breast cancer chemotherapy dose reduction in an integrated healthcare delivery system.

PURPOSE: Most cytotoxic drugs are dosed using body surface area (BSA), yet not all cancer patients receive the full BSA-determined dose. Prior work suggests that breast cancer patients who are obese are more likely to experience dose reduction than normal weight patients. However, the factors driving dose reduction remain unclear. METHODS: In 452 women diagnosed with stage I-IIIA primary breast cancer at Kaiser Permanente Northern California, we evaluated the association between obesity and dose reduction, and further explored other factors in relation to dose reduction, including various sociodemographic characteristics, tumor characteristics, and comorbidities. Study participants were a part of the Pathways Study, diagnosed between 2006 and 2013 and treated with cyclophosphamide + doxorubicin, followed by paclitaxel (ACT). Dose reduction was assessed using first cycle dose proportion (FCDP) and average relative dose intensity (ARDI), a metric of dose intensity over the course of chemotherapy. RESULTS: Overall, 8% of participants received a FCDP < 90% and 21.2% had an ARDI < 90%, with dose reduction increasing with body mass index. In adjusted logistic regression models, obese women had 4.1-fold higher odds of receiving an ARDI < 90% than normal weight women (95% CI: 1.9-8.9; p-trend = 0.0006). Increasing age was positively associated with an ADRI < 90%, as was the presence of comorbidity. Dose reduction was less common in later calendar years. CONCLUSION: Results offer insight on factors associated with chemotherapy dosing for a common breast cancer regimen. Larger studies are required to evaluate relevance to other regimens, and further work will be needed to determine whether dose reductions impact outcomes in obese women.

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

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

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

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

Medical imaging utilization and associated radiation exposure in children with down syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the frequency of medical imaging or estimated associated radiation exposure in children with Down syndrome. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 4,348,226 children enrolled in six U.S. integrated healthcare systems from 1996-2016, 3,095 of whom were diagnosed with Down syndrome. We calculated imaging rates per 100 person years and associated red bone marrow dose (mGy). Relative rates (RR) of imaging in children with versus without Down syndrome were estimated using overdispersed Poisson regression. RESULTS: Compared to other children, children with Down syndrome received imaging using ionizing radiation at 9.5 times (95% confidence interval[CI] = 8.2-10.9) the rate when age <1 year and 2.3 times (95% CI = 2.0-2.5) between ages 1-18 years. Imaging rates by modality in children <1 year with Down syndrome compared with other children were: computed tomography (6.6 vs. 2.0, RR = 3.1[95%CI = 1.8-5.1]), fluoroscopy (37.1 vs. 3.1, RR 11.9[95%CI 9.5-14.8]), angiography (7.6 vs. 0.2, RR = 35.8[95%CI = 20.6-62.2]), nuclear medicine (6.0 vs. 0.6, RR = 8.2[95% CI = 5.3-12.7]), radiography (419.7 vs. 36.9, RR = 11.3[95%CI = 10.0-12.9], magnetic resonance imaging(7.3 vs. 1.5, RR = 4.2[95% CI = 3.1-5.8]), and ultrasound (231.2 vs. 16.4, RR = 12.6[95% CI = 9.9-15.9]). Mean cumulative red bone marrow dose from imaging over a mean of 4.2 years was 2-fold higher in children with Down syndrome compared with other children (4.7 vs. 1.9mGy). CONCLUSIONS: Children with Down syndrome experienced more medical imaging and higher radiation exposure than other children, especially at young ages when they are more vulnerable to radiation. Clinicians should consider incorporating strategic management decisions when imaging this high-risk population.

Impact of Surveillance Mammography Intervals Less Than One Year on Performance Measures in Women With a Personal History of Breast Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: When multiple surveillance mammograms are performed within an annual interval, the current guidance for one-year follow-up to determine breast cancer status results in shared follow-up periods in which a single breast cancer diagnosis can be attributed to multiple preceding examinations, posing a challenge for standardized performance assessment. We assessed the impact of using follow-up periods that eliminate the artifactual inflation of second breast cancer diagnoses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated surveillance mammograms from 2007-2016 in women with treated breast cancer linked with tumor registry and pathology outcomes. Second breast cancers included ductal carcinoma in situ or invasive breast cancer diagnosed during one-year follow-up. The cancer detection rate, interval cancer rate, sensitivity, and specificity were compared using different follow-up periods: standard one-year follow-up per the American College of Radiology versus follow-up that was shortened at the next surveillance mammogram if less than one year (truncated follow-up). Performance measures were calculated overall and by indication (screening, evaluation for breast problem, and short interval follow-up). RESULTS: Of 117971 surveillance mammograms, 20% (n = 23533) were followed by another surveillance mammogram within one year. Standard follow-up identified 1597 mammograms that were associated with second breast cancers. With truncated follow-up, the breast cancer status of 179 mammograms (11.2%) was revised, resulting in 1418 mammograms associated with unique second breast cancers. The interval cancer rate decreased with truncated versus standard follow-up (3.6 versus 4.9 per 1000 mammograms, respectively), with a difference (95% confidence interval [CI]) of -1.3 (-1.6, -1.1). The overall sensitivity increased to 70.4% from 63.7%, for the truncated versus standard follow-up, with a difference (95% CI) of 6.6% (5.6%, 7.7%). The specificity remained stable at 98.1%. CONCLUSION: Truncated follow-up, if less than one year to the next surveillance mammogram, enabled second breast cancers to be associated with a single preceding mammogram and resulted in more accurate estimates of diagnostic performance for national benchmarks.

Racial and Ethnic Variation in Diagnostic Mammography Performance among Women Reporting a Breast Lump.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated diagnostic mammography among women with a breast lump to determine whether performance varied across racial and ethnic groups. METHODS: This study included 51,014 diagnostic mammograms performed between 2005 and 2018 in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium among Asian/Pacific Islander (12%), Black (7%), Hispanic/Latina (6%), and White (75%) women reporting a lump. Breast cancers occurring within 1 year were ascertained from cancer registry linkages. Multivariable regression was used to adjust performance statistic comparisons for breast cancer risk factors, mammogram modality, demographics, additional imaging, and imaging facility. RESULTS: Cancer detection rates were highest among Asian/Pacific Islander [per 1,000 exams, 84.2 (95% confidence interval (CI): 72.0-98.2)] and Black women [81.4 (95% CI: 69.4-95.2)] and lowest among Hispanic/Latina women [42.9 (95% CI: 34.2-53.6)]. Positive predictive values (PPV) were higher among Black [37.0% (95% CI: 31.2-43.3)] and White [37.0% (95% CI: 30.0-44.6)] women and lowest among Hispanic/Latina women [22.0% (95% CI: 17.2-27.7)]. False-positive results were most common among Asian/Pacific Islander women [per 1,000 exams, 183.9 (95% CI: 126.7-259.2)] and lowest among White women [112.4 (95% CI: 86.1-145.5)]. After adjustment, false-positive and cancer detection rates remained higher for Asian/Pacific Islander and Black women (vs. Hispanic/Latina and White). Adjusted PPV was highest among Asian/Pacific Islander women. CONCLUSIONS: Among women with a lump, Asian/Pacific Islander and Black women were more likely to have cancer detected and more likely to receive a false-positive result compared with White and Hispanic/Latina women. IMPACT: Strategies for optimizing diagnostic mammography among women with a lump may vary by racial/ethnic group, but additional factors that influence performance differences need to be identified. See related In the Spotlight, p. 1479.

Impact of BMI on Prevalence of Dense Breasts by Race and Ethnicity.

BACKGROUND: Density notification laws require notifying women of dense breasts with dense breast prevalence varying by race/ethnicity. We evaluated whether differences in body mass index (BMI) account for differences in dense breasts prevalence by race/ethnicity. METHODS: Prevalence of dense breasts (heterogeneously or extremely dense) according to Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System and obesity (BMI > 30 kg/m2) were estimated from 2,667,207 mammography examinations among 866,033 women in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) from January 2005 through April 2021. Prevalence ratios (PR) for dense breasts relative to overall prevalence by race/ethnicity were estimated by standardizing race/ethnicity prevalence in the BCSC to the 2020 U.S. population, and adjusting for age, menopausal status, and BMI using logistic regression. RESULTS: Dense breasts were most prevalent among Asian women (66.0%) followed by non-Hispanic/Latina (NH) White (45.5%), Hispanic/Latina (45.3%), and NH Black (37.0%) women. Obesity was most prevalent in Black women (58.4%) followed by Hispanic/Latina (39.3%), NH White (30.6%), and Asian (8.5%) women. The adjusted prevalence of dense breasts was 19% higher [PR = 1.19; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.19-1.20] in Asian women, 8% higher (PR = 1.08; 95% CI, 1.07-1.08) in Black women, the same in Hispanic/Latina women (PR = 1.00; 95% CI, 0.99-1.01), and 4% lower (PR = 0.96; 95% CI, 0.96-0.97) in NH White women relative to the overall prevalence. CONCLUSIONS: Clinically important differences in breast density prevalence are present across racial/ethnic groups after accounting for age, menopausal status, and BMI. IMPACT: If breast density is the sole criterion used to notify women of dense breasts and discuss supplemental screening it may result in implementing inequitable screening strategies across racial/ethnic groups. See related In the Spotlight, p. 1479.

Digital Breast Tomosynthesis versus Digital Mammography Screening Performance on Successive Screening Rounds from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.

Background Prior cross-sectional studies have observed that breast cancer screening with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) has a lower recall rate and higher cancer detection rate compared with digital mammography (DM). Purpose To evaluate breast cancer screening outcomes with DBT versus DM on successive screening rounds. Materials and Methods In this retrospective cohort study, data from 58 breast imaging facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium were collected. Analysis included women aged 40-79 years undergoing DBT or DM screening from 2011 to 2020. Absolute differences in screening outcomes by modality and screening round were estimated during the study period by using generalized estimating equations with marginal standardization to adjust for differences in women's risk characteristics across modality and round. Results A total of 523 485 DBT examinations (mean age of women, 58.7 years ± 9.7 [SD]) and 1 008 123 DM examinations (mean age, 58.4 years ± 9.8) among 504 863 women were evaluated. DBT and DM recall rates decreased with successive screening round, but absolute recall rates in each round were significantly lower with DBT versus DM (round 1 difference, -3.3% [95% CI: -4.6, -2.1] [P < .001]; round 2 difference, -1.8% [95% CI: -2.9, -0.7] [P = .003]; round 3 or above difference, -1.2% [95% CI: -2.4, -0.1] [P = .03]). DBT had significantly higher cancer detection (difference, 0.6 per 1000 examinations [95% CI: 0.2, 1.1]; P = .009) compared with DM only for round 3 and above. There were no significant differences in interval cancer rate (round 1 difference, 0.00 per 1000 examinations [95% CI: -0.24, 0.30] [P = .96]; round 2 or above difference, 0.04 [95% CI: -0.19, 0.31] [P = .76]) or total advanced cancer rate (round 1 difference, 0.00 per 1000 examinations [95% CI: -0.15, 0.19] [P = .94]; round 2 or above difference, -0.06 [95% CI: -0.18, 0.11] [P = .43]). Conclusion DBT had lower recall rates and could help detect more cancers than DM across three screening rounds, with no difference in interval or advanced cancer rates. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Skaane in this issue.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cumulative 6-Year Risk of Screen-Detected Ductal Carcinoma In Situ by Screening Frequency.

Importance: Detection of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) by mammography screening is a controversial outcome with potential benefits and harms. The association of mammography screening interval and woman's risk factors with the likelihood of DCIS detection after multiple screening rounds is poorly understood. Objective: To develop a 6-year risk prediction model for screen-detected DCIS according to mammography screening interval and women's risk factors. Design, Setting, and Participants: This Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium cohort study assessed women aged 40 to 74 years undergoing mammography screening (digital mammography or digital breast tomosynthesis) from January 1, 2005, to December 31, 2020, at breast imaging facilities within 6 geographically diverse registries of the consortium. Data were analyzed between February and June 2022. Exposures: Screening interval (annual, biennial, or triennial), age, menopausal status, race and ethnicity, family history of breast cancer, benign breast biopsy history, breast density, body mass index, age at first birth, and false-positive mammography history. Main Outcomes and Measures: Screen-detected DCIS defined as a DCIS diagnosis within 12 months after a positive screening mammography result, with no concurrent invasive disease. Results: A total of 916 931 women (median [IQR] age at baseline, 54 [46-62] years; 12% Asian, 9% Black, 5% Hispanic/Latina, 69% White, 2% other or multiple races, and 4% missing) met the eligibility criteria, with 3757 screen-detected DCIS diagnoses. Screening round-specific risk estimates from multivariable logistic regression were well calibrated (expected-observed ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.97-1.03) with a cross-validated area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.639 (95% CI, 0.630-0.648). Cumulative 6-year risk of screen-detected DCIS estimated from screening round-specific risk estimates, accounting for competing risks of death and invasive cancer, varied widely by all included risk factors. Cumulative 6-year screen-detected DCIS risk increased with age and shorter screening interval. Among women aged 40 to 49 years, the mean 6-year screen-detected DCIS risk was 0.30% (IQR, 0.21%-0.37%) for annual screening, 0.21% (IQR, 0.14%-0.26%) for biennial screening, and 0.17% (IQR, 0.12%-0.22%) for triennial screening. Among women aged 70 to 74 years, the mean cumulative risks were 0.58% (IQR, 0.41%-0.69%) after 6 annual screens, 0.40% (IQR, 0.28%-0.48%) for 3 biennial screens, and 0.33% (IQR, 0.23%-0.39%) after 2 triennial screens. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, 6-year screen-detected DCIS risk was higher with annual screening compared with biennial or triennial screening intervals. Estimates from the prediction model, along with risk estimates of other screening benefits and harms, could help inform policy makers' discussions of screening strategies.

Performance of Statistical and Machine Learning Risk Prediction Models for Surveillance Benefits and Failures in Breast Cancer Survivors.

BACKGROUND: Machine learning (ML) approaches facilitate risk prediction model development using high-dimensional predictors and higher-order interactions at the cost of model interpretability and transparency. We compared the relative predictive performance of statistical and ML models to guide modeling strategy selection for surveillance mammography outcomes in women with a personal history of breast cancer (PHBC). METHODS: We cross-validated seven risk prediction models for two surveillance outcomes, failure (breast cancer within 12 months of a negative surveillance mammogram) and benefit (surveillance-detected breast cancer). We included 9,447 mammograms (495 failures, 1,414 benefits, and 7,538 nonevents) from years 1996 to 2017 using a 1:4 matched case-control samples of women with PHBC in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. We assessed model performance of conventional regression, regularized regressions (LASSO and elastic-net), and ML methods (random forests and gradient boosting machines) by evaluating their calibration and, among well-calibrated models, comparing the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: LASSO and elastic-net consistently provided well-calibrated predicted risks for surveillance failure and benefit. The AUCs of LASSO and elastic-net were both 0.63 (95% CI, 0.60-0.66) for surveillance failure and 0.66 (95% CI, 0.64-0.68) for surveillance benefit, the highest among well-calibrated models. CONCLUSIONS: For predicting breast cancer surveillance mammography outcomes, regularized regression outperformed other modeling approaches and balanced the trade-off between model flexibility and interpretability. IMPACT: Regularized regression may be preferred for developing risk prediction models in other contexts with rare outcomes, similar training sample sizes, and low-dimensional features.