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.

Incidence of Breast Cancer in Younger Women: A Canadian Trend Analysis.

Purpose: Breast cancer (BC) incidence is increasing globally. Age-specific BC incidence trend analyses are lacking for women under age 50 in Canada. In this study, we evaluate the incidence trends in breast cancer in women under age 50 in Canada and compare them with corresponding trends among women 50 to 54. Methods: BC case counts were obtained from the National Cancer Incidence Reporting System (1984-1991) and the Canadian Cancer Registry (1992-2019) both housed at Statistics Canada. Population data were also obtained from Statistics Canada. Annual female BC age-specific incidence rates from 1984 to 2019 were derived for the following age groups: 20 to 29, 30 to 39, 40 to 49, 40 to 44, 45 to 49, and 50 to 54. Changes in trends in age-specific BC incidence rates, if any, and annual percent changes (APCs) for each identified trend, were determined using JoinPoint. Results: Statistically significant increasing trends in BC incidence rates were noted for almost all age groups: since 2001 for 20 to 29 (APC = 3.06%, P < .001); since 2009 for 30 to 39 (APC = 1.25%, P = .007); since 1984 for both 40 to 49 (APC = 0.26%, P < .001) and 40 to 44 (APC = 0.19%, P = .011), increased since 2015 for 40 to 49 (APC = 0.77%, P = .047); and since 2005 for 50 to 54 (APC = 0.38%, P = .022). Among women 45 to 49 there was a non-significant increase since 2005 (APC = 0.24, P = .058). Statistically significant average annualized increases in BC incidence rates were observed for each age group studied. Conclusions: Examining age-specific incidence rates formed a more complete picture of BC time trends with significant increasing trends in the incidence of BC among women in their 20s, 30s, 40s, and early 50s. A greater awareness regarding the increasing number of cases of BC in women younger than 50 is critical to allow for earlier diagnosis with its resultant reduced mortality and morbidity.

Breast Cancer Screening in the Intermediate-Risk Population: Falling Through the Cracks?

Breast cancer screening guidelines vary for women at intermediate risk (15%-20% lifetime risk) for developing breast cancer across jurisdictions. Currently available risk assessment models have differing strengths and weaknesses, creating difficulty and ambiguity in selecting the most appropriate model to utilize. Clarifying which model to utilize in individual circumstances may help determine the best screening guidelines to use for each individual.

The Impact of Preoperative Breast MRI on Timing of Surgical Management in Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer.

Purpose: Preoperative breast MRI has been recommended at our center since 2016 for invasive lobular carcinoma and cancers in dense breasts. This study examined how preoperative breast MRI impacted surgical timing and outcomes for patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer. Methods: Retrospective single-center study of consecutive women diagnosed with new breast cancer between June 1, 2019, and March 1, 2021, in whom preoperative breast MRI was recommended. MRI, tumor histology, breast density, post-MRI biopsy, positive predictive value of biopsy (PPV3), surgery, and margin status were recorded. Time from diagnosis to surgery was compared using t-tests. Results: There were 1054 patients reviewed, and 356 were included (mean age 60.9). Of these, 44.4% (158/356) underwent preoperative breast MRI, and 55.6% (198/356) did not. MRI referral was more likely for invasive lobular carcinoma, multifocal disease, and younger patients. Following preoperative MRI, 29.1% (46/158) patients required additional breast biopsies before surgery, for a PPV3 of 37% (17/46). The time between biopsy and surgery was 55.8 ± 21.4 days for patients with the MRI, compared to 42.8 ± 20.3 days for those without (P < .00001). MRI was not associated with the type of surgery (mastectomy vs breastconserving surgery) (P = .44) or rate of positive surgical margins (P = .52). Conclusion: Among patients who underwent preoperative breast MRI, we observed significant delays to surgery by almost 2 weeks. When preoperative MRI is requested, efforts should be made to mitigate associated delays.

Addressing Misinformation About the Canadian Breast Screening Guidelines.

Screening mammography has been shown to reduce breast cancer mortality by 41% in screened women ages 40-69 years. There is misinformation about breast screening and the Canadian breast screening guidelines. This can decrease confidence in screening mammography and can lead to suboptimal recommendations. We review some of this misinformation to help radiologists and referring physicians navigate the varied international and provincial guidelines. We address the ages to start and stop breast screening. We explore how these recommendations may vary for specific populations such as patients who are at increased risk, transgender patients and minorities. We identify who would benefit from supplemental screening and review the available supplemental screening modalities including ultrasound, MRI, contrast-enhanced mammography and others. We describe emerging technologies including the potential use of artificial intelligence for breast screening. We provide background on why screening policies vary across the country between provinces and territories. This review is intended to help radiologists and referring physicians understand and navigate the varied international and provincial recommendations and guidelines and make the best recommendations for their patients.

Medico-Legal Cases in Breast Imaging in Canada: A Trend Analysis.

Purpose: Breast imaging accounts for a large proportion of medico-legal cases involving radiologists in several countries and may be a disincentive to breast imaging. As this has not been well studied in Canada, we evaluated the key medico-legal issues of breast imaging in Canada and their implications for health care providers and patient safety. Methods: In collaboration with Canadian Medical Protective Association (CMPA), we obtained information from the medico-legal repository, including civil-legal, medical regulatory authority (College) and hospital complaints occurring between 2002-2021. Canadian Classification of Health Interventions (CCI) codes were used for breast imaging and biopsy. Trend analysis was done comparing cases involving breast imaging/biopsy to all cases where a radiologist was named. Results: Radiologists were named in 3108 medico-legal cases, 188 (6%, 188/3108) of which were CCI coded for breast imaging or biopsy. Factors related to radiologists were most frequent (64%, 120/188), followed by team (23.4%, 44/188) and system (6.9%, 13/188). Equal representation of male and female radiologists was found (IRR = 1.22; 95% CI: .89, 1.56). In a 10-year test window from 2006 - 2015 we identified an increasing trend for all cases involving radiologists (P = 0,0128) but a decreasing trend for cases coded with breast imaging or biopsy (P = 0,0099). Conclusions: A significant decrease in cases involving breast imaging were found from 2006-2015, accounting for 6% of the medico-legal cases. The lower risk of breast imaging medico-legal issues may encourage more radiologists in breast imaging.

Correlation Between Breast Arterial Calcifications and Higher Cardiovascular Risk: Awareness and Attitudes Amongst Canadian Radiologists Who Report Mammography.

Background: Breast arterial calcification (BAC) on mammography correlates with increased cardiovascular risk. Reporting BAC is not standard practice. Our study evaluates the awareness of Canadian radiologists who report mammography of the clinical significance of BAC and their attitudes towards reporting BAC compared to their European and American counterparts. Methods: Following local institutional ethics approval, a 25 question survey (SurveyMonkey) was disseminated to Canadian radiologists via provincial and national society email lists. Responses were collected over 5 weeks (April-June 2022). Results: One hundred and eighty-six complete responses were collected. Sixty percent (112/186) were aware of the association between BAC and cardiovascular risk and 16% (29/186) document its presence in mammogram reports. Thirty five percent (65/186) occasionally document BAC if severe or in a young patient. Four percent (7/186) had local departmental guidelines on BAC reporting and 82% (153/186) agreed there is a need for national BAC reporting guidelines. Fewer Canadian radiologists were aware of the association between BAC and cardiovascular risk compared to European radiologists (60% vs 81%), report the presence of BAC compared to both European (15% vs 62%) and American (15% vs 35%) radiologists, and inform the patient of the presence of BAC compared to European radiologists (1% vs 46%). Conclusion: Canadian radiologists who report mammography were less aware of the association between BAC and cardiovascular risk than their European and American counterparts and were less likely to document the presence of BAC. Given the correlation of BAC with increased cardiovascular event risk, there is increased need for awareness as well as national BAC reporting guidelines.

Promoting Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion in Medicine: A Comprehensive Toolkit for Change in Radiology.

This toolkit presents a comprehensive framework for a toolkit intended to increase equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) within the medical field and recommendations. We advocate for clear, comprehensive definitions and interpretations of fundamental EDI terms, laying the groundwork necessary for initiating and maintaining EDI initiatives. Furthermore, we offer a systematic approach to establishing EDI committees within medical departments, accentuating the pivotal role these committees play as they drive and steer EDI strategies. This toolkit also explores strategies tailored for the recruitment of a diverse workforce. This includes integral aspects such as developing inclusive job advertisements, implementing balanced search methods for candidates, conducting unbiased appraisals of applications, and structuring diverse hiring committees. The emphasis on these strategies not only augments the diversity within medical institutions but also sets the stage for a more holistic approach to healthcare delivery. Therefore, by adopting the recommended strategies and guidelines outlined in this framework, medical institutions and specifically radiology departments can foster an environment that embodies inclusivity and equity, thereby enhancing the quality of patient care and overall health outcomes.

Randomized trial of surveillance with abbreviated MRI in women with a personal history of breast cancer- impact on patient anxiety and cancer detection.

BACKGROUND: Abbreviated breast MRI (A-MRI) substantially reduces the image acquisition and reading times and has been reported to have similar diagnostic accuracy as a full diagnostic protocol but has not been evaluated prospectively with respect to impact on psychological distress in women with a prior history of breast cancer (PHBC). This study aimed to determine if surveillance mammography (MG) plus A-MRI reduced psychological distress and if A-MRI improved cancer detection rates (CDR) as compared to MG alone. METHODS: This prospective controlled trial of parallel design was performed at a tertiary cancer center on asymptomatic women with PHBC who were randomized into two groups: routine surveillance with MG or intervention of MG plus A-MRI in a 1:1 ratio. Primary outcome was anxiety measured by four validated questionnaires at three different time-points during the study. Other parameters including CDR and positive predictive value for biopsy (PPV3) were compared between imaging modalities of MG and A-MRI. Tissue diagnoses or 1 year of follow-up were used to establish the reference standard. Linear mixed models were used to analyze anxiety measures and Fisher's exact test to compare imaging outcomes. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-eight patients were allocated to either MG alone (94) or MG plus A-MRI (104). No significant group difference emerged for improvement in trait anxiety, worry and perceived health status (all Time-by-surveillance group interaction ps > .05). There was some advantage of A-MRI in reducing state anxiety at Time 2 (p < .05). Anxiety scores in all questionnaires were similarly elevated in both groups (50.99 ± 4.6 with MG alone vs 51.73 ± 2.56 with MG plus A-MRI, p > 0.05) and did not change over time. A-MRI detected 5 invasive cancers and 1 ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), and MG detected 1 DCIS. A-MRI had higher incremental CDR (48/1000(5/104) vs MG 5/1000(1/198, p = 0.01)) and higher biopsy rates (19.2% (20/104) vs MG 2.1% (2/94), p < 0.00001) with no difference in PPV3 (A-MRI 28.6% (6/21) vs MG 16.7% (1/6, p > .05). CONCLUSION: There was no significant impact of A-MRI to patient anxiety or perceived health status. Compared to MG alone, A-MRI had significantly higher incremental cancer detection in PHBC. Despite a higher rate of biopsies, A-MRI had no demonstrable impact on anxiety, worry, and perceived health status. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT02244593 ). Prospectively registered on Sept. 14, 2014.

Limited Chest Ultrasound to Replace CXR in Diagnosis of Pneumothorax Post Image-Guided Transthoracic Interventions.

PURPOSE: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of limited chest ultrasound in detecting pneumothorax following percutaneous transthoracic needle interventions using chest X-ray (CXR) as the reference standard. METHODS: With IRB approval, after providing consent, asymptomatic patients after percutaneous transthoracic needle interventions were enrolled to undergo limited chest ultrasound in addition to CXR. A chest Radiologist blinded to the patient's prior imaging performed a bedside ultrasound, scanning only the first 3 anterior intercostal spaces. Pneumothorax diagnosed on CXR was categorized as small or large and on ultrasound as grades 1, 2, or 3 when detected in 1, 2, or 3 intercostal spaces, respectively. RESULTS: 38 patients underwent 36 biopsies (34 lungs, 1 pleura, and 1 mediastinum) and 2 coil localizations. CXR showed pneumothorax in 13 patients. Ultrasound was positive in 10 patients, with 9 true-positives, 1 false-positive, 4 false-negatives, and 24 true-negatives. The false positive results were due to apical subpleural bullae. The false-negative results occurred in 2 small apical and 2 focal pneumothoraces at the needle entry sites. Four pneumothoraces were categorized as large on CXR, all of which were categorized as grade 3 on ultrasound. Sensitivity and specificity of US for detection of pneumothorax of any size were 69.23% (95%CI 38.6%, 90.1%) and 96.0% (95%CI 79.6%, 99.9%), and for detection of large pneumothorax were 100% (95%CI 39.8%, 100%) and 100% (95%CI 89.7%, 100%). CONCLUSIONS: Results of this prospective study is promising. Limited chest ultrasound could potentially replace CXR in the management of postpercutaneous transthoracic needle intervention patients.

Missed Breast Cancer: Effects of Subconscious Bias and Lesion Characteristics.

Medical errors are a substantial cause of morbidity and mortality and the third leading cause of death in the United States. Errors resulting in missed breast cancer are the most common reason for medical malpractice lawsuits against all physicians. Missed breast cancers are breast malignancies that are detectable at retrospective review of a previously obtained mammogram that was prospectively reported as showing negative, benign, or probably benign findings. Investigators in prior studies have found that up to 35% of both interval cancers and screen-detected cancers could be classified as missed. As such, in conjunction with having awareness of the most common misleading appearances of breast cancer, it is important to understand the cognitive processes and unconscious biases that can impact image interpretation, thereby helping to decrease the number of missed breast cancers. The various cognitive processes that lead to unconscious bias in breast imaging, such as satisfaction of search, inattention blindness, hindsight, anchoring, premature closing, and satisfaction of reporting, are outlined in this pictorial review of missed breast cancers. In addition, strategies for reducing the rates of these missed cancers are highlighted. The most commonly missed and misinterpreted lesions, including stable lesions, benign-appearing masses, one-view findings, developing asymmetries, subtle calcifications, and architectural distortion, also are reviewed. This information will help illustrate why and how breast cancers are missed and aid in the development of appropriate minimization strategies in breast imaging. ©RSNA, 2020.

COVID-19: Safe Guidelines for Breast Imaging During the Pandemic.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, breast imaging must be performed using safe practices. Balancing the need to avoid delays in the diagnosis of breast cancer while avoiding infection requires careful attention to personal protective equipment and physical distancing and vigilance to maintain these practices. The Canadian Society of Breast Imaging/Canadian Association of Radiologists guideline for breast imaging during COVID-19 is provided based on priority according to risk of breast cancer and impact of delaying treatment. A review of the best practices is presented that allow breast imaging during COVID-19 to maximize protection of patients, technologists, residents, fellows, and radiologists and minimize spread of the infection. The collateral damage of delaying diagnosis of breast cancer due to COVID-19 should be avoided when possible.

Breast pain and cancer: should we continue to work-up isolated breast pain?

PURPOSE: To assess the cancer detection rate (CDR) in patients presenting with isolated breast pain. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of consecutive patients presenting to a large tertiary care academic center or an affiliated hospital with isolated breast pain from October 1, 2013 to September 30, 2015. Medical records were reviewed for patient demographics, pain characteristics, imaging findings, and outcome. RESULTS: The study cohort was comprised of 971 exams in 953 patients, with a median age of 50 years. A total of 62.5% (607/971) of the cases were assessed by mammography and ultrasound, 24.4% (237/971) by ultrasound only, and 13.1% (127/971) by mammography only. Including the abnormalities detected in the asymptomatic breast, 88.7% (861/971) of the cases were negative or had benign findings (BI-RADS 1 and 2), 6.8% (66/971) were probably benign (BI-RADS 3), 3.9% (38/971) were suspicious (BI-RADS 4), and 0.6% (6/971) were highly suggestive of malignancy (BI-RADS 5). CDR on initial work-up was 0.8% (8/953), of which 0.6% (4/690) was in average-risk patients while 1.5% (4/263) was in higher-than-average risk patients. CONCLUSIONS: CDR in patients presenting with isolated breast pain overall was low, comparable to the expected incidence of breast cancer in asymptomatic women. Work-up for isolated breast pain may therefore be unnecessary and lead to overutilization of healthcare resources. Routine screening mammography should be encouraged and higher-than-average risk patients may benefit from additional tests.

Participant selection for lung cancer screening by risk modelling (the Pan-Canadian Early Detection of Lung Cancer [PanCan] study): a single-arm, prospective study.

BACKGROUND: Results from retrospective studies indicate that selecting individuals for low-dose CT lung cancer screening on the basis of a highly predictive risk model is superior to using criteria similar to those used in the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST; age, pack-year, and smoking quit-time). We designed the Pan-Canadian Early Detection of Lung Cancer (PanCan) study to assess the efficacy of a risk prediction model to select candidates for lung cancer screening, with the aim of determining whether this approach could better detect patients with early, potentially curable, lung cancer. METHODS: We did this single-arm, prospective study in eight centres across Canada. We recruited participants aged 50-75 years, who had smoked at some point in their life (ever-smokers), and who did not have a self-reported history of lung cancer. Participants had at least a 2% 6-year risk of lung cancer as estimated by the PanCan model, a precursor to the validated PLCOm2012 model. Risk variables in the model were age, smoking duration, pack-years, family history of lung cancer, education level, body-mass index, chest x-ray in the past 3 years, and history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Individuals were screened with low-dose CT at baseline (T0), and at 1 (T1) and 4 (T4) years post-baseline. The primary outcome of the study was incidence of lung cancer. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00751660. FINDINGS: 7059 queries came into the study coordinating centre and were screened for PanCan risk. 15 were duplicates, so 7044 participants were considered for enrolment. Between Sept 24, 2008, and Dec 17, 2010, we recruited and enrolled 2537 eligible ever-smokers. After a median follow-up of 5·5 years (IQR 3·2-6·1), 172 lung cancers were diagnosed in 164 individuals (cumulative incidence 0·065 [95% CI 0·055-0·075], incidence rate 138·1 per 10 000 person-years [117·8-160·9]). There were ten interval lung cancers (6% of lung cancers and 6% of individuals with cancer): one diagnosed between T0 and T1, and nine between T1 and T4. Cumulative incidence was significantly higher than that observed in NLST (4·0%; p<0·0001). Compared with 593 (57%) of 1040 lung cancers observed in NLST, 133 (77%) of 172 lung cancers in the PanCan Study were early stage (I or II; p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: The PanCan model was effective in identifying individuals who were subsequently diagnosed with early, potentially curable, lung cancer. The incidence of cancers detected and the proportion of early stage cancers in the screened population was higher than observed in previous studies. This approach should be considered for adoption in lung cancer screening programmes. FUNDING: Terry Fox Research Institute and Canadian Partnership Against Cancer.

An evaluation of patient experience during percutaneous breast biopsy.

OBJECTIVE: Percutaneous breast biopsy in a tertiary referral high volume breast centre: can we improve the patient experience? PURPOSE: The study was performed to evaluate patient experience during ultrasound-guided (UGB) and vacuum-assisted stereotactic breast biopsy (SBB) and determine what factors could improve the patient experience. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent image guided breast biopsy from 01- 05/30, 2015 were approached in a structured telephone interview to evaluate pain and bruising from the procedure. Three hundred and fifty-one patients were interviewed (116 SBB and 235 UGB). Information about the radiologist performing the biopsy, biopsy type, needle gauge, and number of cores was collected from the biopsy reports. Correlation was done using Spearman rank test. RESULTS: Average patient scores of pain with UGB and SBB were 2.3 and 3.1 (out of 10). There was a significant correlation between pain during SBB and physician experience (p = 0.013), and no correlation with pain during UGB (p > 0.05). No correlation was found between needle gauge and pain experienced during breast biopsy or between numbers of cores and pain (p > 0.05). Body position during SBB was mentioned to cause discomfort and pain in 28% of patients while during UGB was mentioned by 0.4% of patients. CONCLUSION: SBB was inferior to UGB for patient experience, but years of radiologists' experience correlated with improved patient scores of pain for SBB. KEY POINTS: • To achieve high quality, an institution must emphasise patient-centred care. • Increased radiologist training with stereotactic biopsy may contribute to improved patient experience. • Stereotactic breast biopsy was inferior to ultrasound biopsy for patient experience. • Radiologists' experience correlated with improved patient scores of pain for stereotactic biopsy.

Benign Papillomas of the Breast Diagnosed on Large-Gauge Vacuum Biopsy compared with 14 Gauge Core Needle Biopsy - Do they require surgical excision?

To evaluate whether biopsy with vacuum-assisted biopsy (VAB) devices improves histologic underestimation rates of benign papillomas when compared to smaller bore core needle biopsy (CNB) devices. Patients with biopsy-proven benign papillomas with surgical resection or minimum 12 months follow-up were selected. Two breast pathologists reviewed all pathology slides of percutaneous and excisional biopsy specimens. Histologic underestimation rates for lesions biopsied with 10-12 Gauge (G) VAB were compared to those with 14G CNB. A total of 107 benign papillomas in 107 patients from two centers were included. There were 60 patients (mean age 57 years, SD 10.3 years) diagnosed with VAB and 47 patients (mean age 57.6 years, SD 11.3 years) with 14G CNB who underwent surgical excision or imaging follow-up. The upgrade rate to ductal carcinoma in situ or invasive carcinoma was 1.6% (1/60) with VAB and 8.5% (4/47) with 14G. Upgrade to atypia was 3.3% (2/60) after VAB and 10.6% (5/47) with CNB. The total underestimation rates were 5% (3/60) with VAB and 19.1% (9/47) with CNB. The odds of an upgrade to malignancy was 5.5 times higher with a 14G needle than VAB (95% CI: 0.592-50.853, p = 0.17). We observed a lower but not statistically significant upgrade rate to malignancy and atypia with the use of the 10-12 G VAB as compared with 14G CNB. When a papilloma without atypia is diagnosed with vacuum biopsy there is a high likelihood that it is benign; however, if surgical excision is not performed, long-term follow-up is still required.

Canadian Radiologists Do Not Support Screening Mammography Guidelines of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care.

PURPOSE: The study sought to determine screening mammography recommendations that radiologists in Canada promote to average-risk patients and family or friends, and do or would do for themselves. METHODS: An online survey was delivered from February 19, 2014, to July 11, 2014. Data included radiologists' recommendations for mammography and their personal screening habits based on gender. The 3 radiologists' cohorts were women ≥40 years of age, women <40 years of age, and men. The distribution of responses for each question was summarized, and proportions for the entire group and individual cohorts were computed. RESULTS: Of 402 surveys collected, 97% (299 of 309) radiologists recommended screening every 1-2 years, 62% (192 of 309) starting ≥40 years of age and 2% (5 of 309) recommended screening every 2-3 years for women 50-74 years of age. Recommendations were similar for family and friends: 96% (294 of 305) recommended screening every 1-2 years, 66% (202 of 305) recommended screening every 1-2 years for women ≥40 years of age, and 2% (5 of 305) recommended screening every 2-3 years. For women radiologists ≥40 years of age, 76% (48 of 63) underwent screening every 1-2 years and started at 40 years of age, 76% (16 of 21) female radiologists <40 years of age would undergo screening ≥40 years of age, 100% every 1-2 years, and 90% (151 of 167) male radiologists would undergo screening every 1-2 years, with 71% (120 of 169) beginning at 40 years of age. CONCLUSION: The majority of Canadian radiologists recommend screening mammography every 1-2 years for average-risk women ≥40 years of age, whether they are patients or family and friends.