Population-based study of the effect of preoperative breast MRI on the surgical management of ductal carcinoma in situ.

BACKGROUND: Determinants of the use of breast MRI in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) in the Netherlands were studied, and whether using MRI influenced the rates of positive resection margins and mastectomies. METHODS: All women aged less than 75 years, and diagnosed with DCIS between 2011 and 2015, were identified from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed, adjusting for incidence year, age, hospital type, DCIS grade and multifocality. RESULTS: Breast MRI was performed in 2382 of 10 415 DCIS cases (22·9 per cent). In multivariable analysis, patients aged less than 50 years, those with high- or intermediate-grade DCIS and patients with multifocal disease were significantly more likely to have preoperative MRI. Patients undergoing MRI were more likely to have a mastectomy, either as first surgical treatment or following breast-conserving surgery (BCS) in the event of positive margins (odds ratio (OR) 2·11, 95 per cent c.i. 1·91 to 2·33). The risk of positive surgical margins after BCS was similar for those with versus without MRI. The secondary mastectomy rate after BCS was higher in patients who had MRI, especially in women aged less than 50 years (OR 1·94, 1·31 to 2·89). All findings were similar for low- and intermediate/high-grade DCIS. CONCLUSION: Adding MRI to conventional breast imaging did not improve surgical outcome in patients diagnosed with primary DCIS. The likelihood of undergoing a mastectomy was twice as high in the MRI group, and no reduction in the risk of margin involvement was observed after BCS.

ANTECEDENTES: Se estudiaron los determinantes del uso de la resonancia magnética (RM) de mama en pacientes con carcinoma ductal in situ (ductal carcinoma in situ, DCIS) en los Países Bajos y si el uso de la RM influía en las tasas de márgenes de resección positivos y de mastectomías. MÉTODOS: Todas las mujeres menores de 76 años de edad y diagnosticadas de DCIS fueron identificadas a partir del Registro de Cáncer de los Países Bajos de 2011-2015. Se realizaron análisis de regresión logística multivariable, ajustando por año de incidencia, edad, tipo de hospital, grado de DCIS y multifocalidad. RESULTADOS: Se realizó una RM de mama en 2.382 de 10.415 (23%) pacientes con DCIS. En el análisis multivariable, en las pacientes de edad < 50 años, con DCIS de grado alto o intermedio y enfermedad multifocal era estadísticamente significativo más probable que se sometieran a una RM preoperatoria. Las pacientes que se sometieron a RM tuvieron más probabilidades de que se efectuara una mastectomía, ya fuera como primer tratamiento quirúrgico o después de una cirugía conservadora de mama (breast conserving surgery, BCS) en el caso de presentar márgenes positivos (razón de oportunidades, odds ratio, OR = 2,1, i.c. del 95%: 1,9-2,3). El riesgo de obtener márgenes quirúrgicos positivos después de la BCS fue similar para aquellas pacientes con RM versus sin RM. Sin embargo, la tasa de mastectomía secundaria después de la BCS fue mayor en pacientes con RM, especialmente en mujeres menores de 50 años (OR = 1,9, i.c. del 95%: 1,3-2,9). CONCLUSIÓN: Agregar la RM a las imágenes radiológicas convencionales de mama no mejoró el resultado quirúrgico en pacientes diagnosticadas de DCIS primario. En el grupo de RM, la probabilidad de someterse a una mastectomía fue dos veces más alta, sin observarse una reducción en el riesgo de afectación del margen después de la BCS.

Performance characteristics of specimen radiography for margin assessment for ductal carcinoma in situ: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Reducing positive margin rate (PMR) and reoperation rate in breast-conserving operations remains a challenge, mainly regarding ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Intra-operative margin assessment tools have emerged to reduce PMR over the last decades, including specimen radiography (SR). No consensus has been reached on the reliability and efficacy of SR in DCIS. OBJECTIVE: We performed a systematic literature review to assess the performance characteristics of SR for margin assessment of breast lesions with pure DCIS and invasive cancers with DCIS components. METHODS: A literature search was conducted for diagnostic studies up to April 2017 concerning SR for intra-operative margin assessment of breast lesions with pure DCIS or with DCIS components. Studies reporting sensitivity and specificity calculated using final pathology report as reference test were included. Due to improved imaging technology, studies published more than 15 years ago were excluded. Methodological quality was assessed using quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies-2 checklist. Due to clinical and methodological diversity, meta-analysis was considered not useful. RESULTS: Of 235 citations identified, 9 met predefined inclusion criteria and documented diagnostic efficacy data. Sensitivity ranged from 22 to 77% and specificity ranged from 51 to 100%. Positive predictive value and negative predictive value ranged from 53 to 100% and 32 to 95%, respectively. High or unclear risk of bias was found in reference standard in 5 of 9 studies. High concerns regarding applicability of index test were found in 6 of 9 studies. CONCLUSIONS: The present results do not support the routine use of intra-operative specimen radiography to reduce the rate of positive margins in patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery for pure DCIS or the DCIS component in invasive cancer. Future studies need to differentiate between initial and final specimen margin involvement. This could provide surgeons with a number needed to treat for a more applicable outcome.

Patients with invasive lobular breast cancer are less likely to undergo breast-conserving surgery: a population based study in the Netherlands.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the frequency of breast-conserving surgery (BCS) between early-stage invasive ductal (IDC) and invasive lobular breast cancer (ILC). METHODS: Women with primary non-metastatic pT1 and pT2 IDC or ILC diagnosed between 1990 and 2010 were selected from the NCR. All patients underwent BCS or primary mastectomy without neoadjuvant treatment and proportions per year were calculated. Logistic regression analysis with adjustment for period, age, nodal status and tumor size was performed to determine the impact of histology on the likelihood of undergoing BCS. RESULTS: A total of 152,574 patients underwent surgery in the period between 1990 and 2010, of which 89 % had IDC and 11 % had ILC. In the group of IDC with pT1 and pT2 tumors combined, 54 % underwent BCS compared with 43 % of patients with ILC (p < 0.0001). The proportion of patients with IDC treated by BCS increased from 46 % in 1990 to 62 % in 2010. The BCS rate among ILC patients increased from 39 % in 1990 to 48 % in 2010. Patients with ILC were less likely to undergo BCS compared with patients with IDC (odds ratio 0.69; 95 % confidence interval 0.66-0.71). CONCLUSION: The incidence of BCS for patients with IDC or ILC is rising in The Netherlands. However, the increase of BCS is less explicit in patients with ILC, with a higher chance of undergoing mastectomy compared with patients with IDC.

Trends in surgery for screen-detected and interval breast cancers in a national screening programme.

BACKGROUND: This population-based study aimed to evaluate trends in surgical approach for screen-detected cancer versus interval breast cancer, and to determine the factors associated with positive resection margins. METHODS: Screening mammograms of women aged 50-75 years, who underwent biennial screening in a Dutch breast-screening region between 1997 and 2011, were included. Patient and tumour characteristics were compared between women who underwent mastectomy or breast-conserving surgery (BCS) for screen-detected or interval cancer, and women with a negative or positive resection margin after BCS. RESULTS: Some 417,013 consecutive screening mammograms were included. A total of 2224 screen-detected and 825 interval cancers were diagnosed. The BCS rate remained stable (mean 6.1 per 1000 screened women; P = 0.099), whereas mastectomy rates increased significantly during the study from 0.9 (1997-1998) to 1.9 (2009-2010) per 1000 screened women (P < 0.001). The proportion of positive resection margins for invasive cancer was 19.6 and 7.6 per cent in 1997-1998 and 2009-2010 respectively (P < 0.001), with significant variation between hospitals. Dense breasts, preoperative magnetic resonance imaging, microcalcifications, architectural distortion, tumour size over 20 mm, axillary lymph node metastasis and treating hospital were independent risk factors for mastectomy. Interval cancer, image-guided tumour localization, microcalcifications, breast parenchyma asymmetry, tumour size greater than 20 mm, lobular tumour histology, low tumour grade, extensive invasive component and treating hospital were independent risk factors for positive resection margins. CONCLUSION: Mastectomy rates doubled during a 14-year period of screening mammography and the proportion of positive resection margins decreased, with variation among hospitals. The latter observation stresses the importance of quality control programmes for hospitals treating women with breast cancer.

Variations in screening outcome among pairs of screening radiologists at non-blinded double reading of screening mammograms: a population-based study.

OBJECTIVES: Substantial inter-observer variability in screening mammography interpretation has been reported at single reading. However, screening results of pairs of screening radiologists have not yet been published. We determined variations in screening performances among pairs of screening radiologists at non-blinded double reading. METHODS: We included pairs of screening radiologists with at least 7,500 screening examinations per pair, obtained between 1997 and 2011. During 2-year follow-up, breast imaging reports, surgical reports and pathology results were collected of all referred women and interval cancers. Referral rate, cancer detection rate, positive predictive value and sensitivity were calculated for each pair. RESULTS: A total of 310,906 screening mammograms, read by 26 pairs of screening radiologists, were included for analysis. The referral rate ranged from 1.0 % (95 % CI 0.8 %-1.2 %) to 1.5 % (95 % CI 1.3 %-1.8 %), the cancer detection rate from 4.0 (95 % CI 2.8-5.2) to 6.3 (95 % CI 4.5-8.0) per 1,000 screens. The programme sensitivity and positive predictive value of referral ranged from 55.1 % (95 % CI 45.1 %-65.1 %) to 81.5 % (95 % CI 73.4 %-89.6 %) and from 28.7 % (95 % CI 20.8 %-36.6 %) to 49.5 % (95 % CI 39.7 %-59.3 %), respectively. CONCLUSION: We found significant variations in screening outcomes among pairs of screening radiologists at non-blinded double reading. This stresses the importance of monitoring screening results on a local scale. KEY POINTS: • Substantial inter-observer variability in screening mammography interpretation is known at single reading • Population-based study showed significant variations in outcomes among pairs of screening radiologists • Local monitoring and regular feedback are important to optimise screening outcome.

Re-attendance after false-positive screening mammography: a population-based study in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: In the current study, mammography adherence of women who had experienced a false-positive referral is evaluated, with emphasis on the probability of receiving surveillance mammography outside the national screening programme. METHODS: We included 424,703 consecutive screens and collected imaging, biopsy and surgery reports of 3463 women who experienced a false-positive referral. Adherence to screening, both in and outside the screening programme, was evaluated. RESULTS: Two years after the false-positive referral, overall screening adherence was 94.6%, with 64.7% of women returning to the national screening programme, compared with 94.9% of women re-attending the screening programme after a negative screen (P<0.0001). Four years after the false-positive screen, the overall adherence had decreased to 85.2% (P<0.0001) with a similar proportion of the women re-attending the screening programme (64.4%) and a lower proportion (20.8%) having clinical surveillance mammography. Women who had experienced a false-positive screen at their first screening round were less likely to adhere to mammography than women with an abnormal finding at one of the following screening rounds (92.4% vs 95.5%, P<0.0001). CONCLUSION: Overall screening adherence after previous false-positive referral was comparable to the re-attendance rate of women with a negative screen at 2-year follow-up. Overall adherence decreased 4 years after previous false-positive referral from 94.6% to 85.2%, with a relatively high estimate of women who continue with clinical surveillance mammography (20.8%). Women with false-positive screens should be made aware of the importance to re-attend future screening rounds, as a way to improve the effectiveness of the screening programme.

Trends in breast biopsies for abnormalities detected at screening mammography: a population-based study in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic surgical breast biopsies have several disadvantages, therefore, they should be used with hesitation. We determined time trends in types of breast biopsies for the workup of abnormalities detected at screening mammography. We also examined diagnostic delays. METHODS: In a Dutch breast cancer screening region 6230 women were referred for an abnormal screening mammogram between 1 January 1997 and 1 January 2011. During two year follow-up clinical data, breast imaging-, biopsy-, surgery- and pathology-reports were collected of these women. Furthermore, breast cancers diagnosed >3 months after referral (delays) were examined, this included review of mammograms and pathology specimens to determine the cause of the delays. RESULTS: In 41.1% (1997-1998) and in 44.8% (2009-2010) of referred women imaging was sufficient for making the diagnosis (P<0.0001). Fine-needle aspiration cytology decreased from 12.7% (1997-1998) to 4.7% (2009-2010) (P<0.0001), percutaneous core-needle biopsies (CBs) increased from 8.0 to 49.1% (P<0.0001) and surgical biopsies decreased from 37.8 to 1.4% (P<0.0001). Delays in breast cancer diagnosis decreased from 6.7 to 1.8% (P=0.003). CONCLUSION: The use of diagnostic surgical breast biopsies has decreased substantially. They have mostly been replaced by percutaneous CBs and this replacement did not result in an increase of diagnostic delays.

Impact of transition from analog screening mammography to digital screening mammography on screening outcome in The Netherlands: a population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Full-field digital mammography (FFDM) has replaced screen-film mammography (SFM) in most breast screening programs. We analyzed the impact of this replacement on the screening outcome. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study population consisted of a consecutive series of 60 770 analog and 63 182 digital screens. During a 1-year follow-up, we collected breast imaging reports, biopsy results and surgical reports of all the referred women. RESULTS: The referral rate and the cancer detection rate at FFDM were, respectively, 3.0% and 6,6‰, compared with 1.5% (P < 0.001) and 4.9‰ (P < 0.001) at SFM. Positive predictive values of referral and percutaneous biopsies were lower at FFDM, respectively, 21.9% versus 31.6% (P < 0.001) and 42.9% versus 62.8% (P < 0.001). Per 1000 screened women, there was a significant increase with FFDM versus SFM in the detection rate of low- and intermediate-grade ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) (+0.7), invasive T1a-c cancers (+0.9), invasive ductal cancers (+0.9), low-grade (+1.1), node-negative invasive cancers (+1.2), estrogen-receptor or progesterone-receptor-positive invasive cancers (respectively, +0.9 and +1.1) and Her2/Neu-negative (+0.8) invasive cancers. Mastectomy rates were stable at 1.1 per 1,000 screens. CONCLUSIONS: FFDM significantly increased the referral rate and cancer detection rate, at the expense of a lower positive predictive value of referral and biopsy. Extra tumors detected at FFDM were mostly low-intermediate grade DCIS and smaller invasive tumors, of more favorable tumor characteristics. Mastectomy rates were not increased in the FFDM population, while increased over-diagnosis cannot be excluded.

Socioeconomic inequalities in attending the mass screening for breast cancer in the south of the Netherlands--associations with stage at diagnosis and survival.

The associations of socioeconomic status (SES) and participation in the breast cancer screening program, as well as consequences for stage of disease and prognosis were studied in the Netherlands, where no financial barriers for participating or health care use exist. From 1998 to 2005, 1,067,952 invitations for biennial mammography were sent to women aged 50-75 in the region covered by the Eindhoven Cancer Registry. Screening attendance rates according to SES were calculated. Tumor stage and survival were studied according to SES group for patients diagnosed with breast cancer between 1998 and 2006, whether screen-detected, interval carcinoma or not attended screening at all. Attendance rates were rather high: 79, 85 and 87% in women with low, intermediate and high SES (p < 0.001), respectively. Compared to the low SES group, odds ratios for attendance were 1.5 (95%CI:1.5-1.6) for the intermediate SES group and 1.8 (95%CI:1.7-1.8) for the high SES group. Moreover, women with low SES had an unfavorable tumor-node-metastasis stage compared to those with high SES. This was seen in non-attendees, among women with interval cancers and with screen-detected cancers. Among non-attendees and interval cancers, the socioeconomic survival disparities were largely explained by stage distribution (48 and 35%) and to a lesser degree by therapy (16 and 16%). Comorbidity explained most survival inequalities among screen-detected patients (23%). Despite the absence of financial barriers for participation in the Dutch mass-screening program, socioeconomic inequalities in attendance rates exist, and women with low SES had a significantly worse tumor stage and lower survival rate.

Trends in delayed breast cancer diagnosis after recall at screening mammography.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the extent and characteristics of delay in breast cancer diagnosis in women recalled at screening mammography. METHODS: We included a consecutive series of 817,656 screens of women who received biennial screening mammography in a Dutch breast cancer screening region between 1997 and 2016. During at least 3.5 years follow-up, radiological reports and biopsy reports were collected of all recalled women. The inclusion period was divided into four cohorts of four years each. We determined the number of screen-detected cancers and their characteristics, and assessed the proportion of recalled women who experienced a diagnostic delay of at least 4 months in breast cancer confirmation. RESULTS: The proportion of recalled women who experienced diagnostic delay decreased from 7.5 % in 1997-2001 (47/623) to 3.0 % in 2012-2016 (67/2223, P < 0.001). The proportion of women with a delay of at least two years increased from 27.7 % (13/47) in 1997-2001 to 75.7 % (53/70) in 2012-2016 (P < 0.001). Cancers with a diagnostic delay > 2 years were more frequently invasive (P = 0.009) than cancers with a diagnostic delay of 4-24 months. The most frequent cause of diagnostic delays was incorrect radiological classifications by clinical radiologists (55.2 % overall) after recall. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of recalled women with a delayed breast cancer diagnosis has more than halved during two decades of screening mammography. Delays in breast cancer diagnosis are characterized by longer delay intervals, although the proportion of these delays among all screen-detected cancers has not increased. Preventing longer delays in breast cancer confirmation may help improve breast cancer survival.

Rising incidence of breast cancer among female cancer survivors: implications for surveillance.

The number of female cancer survivors has been rising rapidly. We assessed the occurrence of breast cancer in these survivors over time. We computed incidence of primary breast cancer in two cohorts of female cancer survivors with a first diagnosis of cancer at ages 30+ in the periods 1975-1979 and 1990-1994. Cohorts were followed for 10 years through a population-based cancer registry. Over a period of 15 years, the incidence rate of breast cancer among female cancer survivors increased by 30% (age-standardised rate ratio (RR-adj): 1.30; 95% CI: 1.03-1.68). The increase was significant for non-breast cancer survivors (RR-adj: 1.41, 95% CI: 1.04-2.75). During the study period, the rate of second breast cancer stage II tripled (RR-adj: 3.10, 95% CI: 1.73-5.78). Non-breast cancer survivors had a significantly (P value=0.005) more unfavourable stage distribution (62% stage II and III) than breast cancer survivors (32% stage II and III). A marked rise in breast cancer incidence among female cancer survivors was observed. Research to optimise follow-up strategies for these women to detect breast cancer at an early stage is warranted.

Inter-observer variability in mammography screening and effect of type and number of readers on screening outcome.

We prospectively determined the variability in radiologists' interpretation of screening mammograms and assessed the influence of type and number of readers on screening outcome. Twenty-one screening mammography radiographers and eight screening radiologists participated. A total of 106,093 screening mammograms were double-read by two radiographers and, in turn, by two radiologists. Initially, radiologists were blinded to the referral opinion of the radiographers. A woman was referred if she was considered positive at radiologist double-reading with consensus interpretation or referred after radiologist review of positive cases at radiographer double-reading. During 2-year follow-up, clinical data, breast imaging reports, biopsy results and breast surgery reports were collected of all women with a positive screening result from any reader. Single radiologist reading (I) resulted in a mean cancer detection rate of 4.64 per 1000 screens (95% confidence intervals (CI)=4.23-5.05) with individual variations from 3.44 (95% CI=2.30-4.58) to 5.04 (95% CI=3.81-6.27), and a sensitivity of 63.9% (95% CI=60.5-67.3), ranging from 51.5% (95% CI=39.6-63.3) to 75.0% (95% CI=65.3-84.7). Sensitivity at non-blinded, radiologist double-reading (II), radiologist double-reading followed by radiologist review of positive cases at radiographer double-reading (III), triple reading by one radiologist and two radiographers with referral of all positive readings (IV) and quadruple reading by two radiologists and two radiographers with referral of all positive readings (V) were as follows: 68.6% (95% CI=65.3-71.9) (II); 73.2% (95% CI=70.1-76.4) (III); 75.2% (95% CI=72.1-78.2) (IV), and 76.9% (95% CI=73.9-79.9) (V). We conclude that screener performance significantly varied at single-reading. Double-reading increased sensitivity by a relative 7.3%. When there is a shortage of screening radiologists, triple reading by one radiologist and two radiographers may replace radiologist double-reading.

Screening caused rising incidence rates of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast.

The purpose of this study was to examine trends in incidence and detection of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast in southern Netherlands in the period 1984-2006 and assess the effect of mass screening. All patients with primary DCIS registered between 1984 and 2006 in the population-based Eindhoven Cancer Registry were included (n = 1,767). These data were linked to data from the population-based screening programme. The incidence of DCIS of the breast increased from 3/100,000 to almost 34/100,000 person-years in women aged 50-69 years in southern Netherlands since 1984. Mass screening was responsible for this increase. A stable 60% of DCIS was screen-detected. Over 11% of breast cancer patients have DCIS. In conclusion, the incidence of DCIS increased markedly in southern Netherlands with a clear effect of mammography screening since 1992.

[Peripheral artery disease: clinical and cost comparison between duplex ultrasonography and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography--a multicenter randomized trial]. / De kosten en de effecten van magnetischeresonantieangiografie en duplexechografie bij patiënten met perifeer arterieel vaatlijden: een multicentrische gerandomiseerde studie.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical and economic consequences of replacing duplex ultrasonography (DUS) by contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (CE-MRA) for the initial diagnostic work-up of patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD). DESIGN: Randomised multicentre study. METHOD: In the period from January 2002 to August 2003, consecutive patients with PAD were randomly assigned to CE-MRA or DUS. The primary outcome measure was the costs. Secondary outcome measures included the confidence with which the specialist could take a therapeutic decision on the basis of the imaging study, the change in disease severity, and the change in quality of life (QOL) assessed during 6 months of follow-up. In addition, all costs of imaging, therapeutic interventions and outpatient visits were calculated. RESULTS: After 6 months of follow-up the data on 352 patients were analysed. Use of CE-MRA reduced the number of additional vascular-imaging procedures by 42% ((69-40)/69) and the specialists felt more confident about their therapeutic decisions. The diagnostic costs of all imaging studies taken together were Euro 167,- higher, on average, in the CE-MRA group (p < 0.001). However, after 6 months of follow-up, no statistically significant differences were found between the two groups with regard to the change in disease severity, the QOL, or the total costs (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Based on these findings, a specialist that replaces DUS by CE-MRA will feel more confident about taking a therapeutic decision and will feel less need for additional imaging. However, the diagnostic costs were higher with CE-MRA.

Modified Core Wash Cytology: A reliable same day biopsy result for breast clinics.

BACKGROUND: Fine Needle Aspiration Biopsy (FNAB), Core Needle biopsy (CNB) and hybrid techniques including Core Wash Cytology (CWC) are available for same-day diagnosis in breast lesions. In CWC a washing of the biopsy core is processed for a provisional cytological diagnosis, after which the core is processed like a regular CNB. This study focuses on the reliability of CWC in daily practice. METHODS: All consecutive CWC procedures performed in a referral breast centre between May 2009 and May 2012 were reviewed, correlating CWC results with the CNB result, definitive diagnosis after surgical resection and/or follow-up. Symptomatic as well as screen-detected lesions, undergoing CNB were included. RESULTS: 1253 CWC procedures were performed. Definitive histology showed 849 (68%) malignant and 404 (32%) benign lesions. 80% of CWC procedures yielded a conclusive diagnosis: this percentage was higher amongst malignant lesions and lower for benign lesions: 89% and 62% respectively. Sensitivity and specificity of a conclusive CWC result were respectively 98.3% and 90.4%. The eventual incidence of malignancy in the cytological 'atypical' group (5%) was similar to the cytological 'benign' group (6%). CONCLUSION: CWC can be used to make a reliable provisional diagnosis of breast lesions within the hour. The high probability of conclusive results in malignant lesions makes CWC well suited for high risk populations.

Arbitration of discrepant BI-RADS 0 recalls by a third reader at screening mammography lowers recall rate but not the cancer detection rate and sensitivity at blinded and non-blinded double reading.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the characteristics of low suspicion lesions (BI-RADS 0) at blinded and non-blinded double reading of screening mammograms and to determine the potential effect of arbitration of discrepant BI-RADS 0 recalls by a third reader on screening outcome. METHODS: We included a series of 84,927 consecutive digital screening mammograms, double read in a blinded (43,184 screens) or non-blinded (41,743 screens) fashion, between July 2009 and July 2011. Discrepant readings were routinely recalled for further evaluation. During 2 years of follow-up, radiology, surgical and pathology reports were collected of all recalled women. Arbitration of discrepant BI-RADS 0 recalls (only one radiologist assigning a BI-RADS 0 score) was retrospectively performed by a third screening radiologist. RESULTS: At blinded and non-blinded double reading, 32.0% and 32.5% of recalls were assigned BI-RADS 0 with a positive predictive value (PPV) of 7.2% and 6.8%, respectively. Compared to non-blinded double reading, BI-RADS 0 recalls at blinded double reading showed a higher discrepancy rate (9.0 versus 4.3 per 1000 screens, p < 0.001) and false positive recall rate (10.1 versus 8.4 per 1000 screens, p = 0.012). Arbitration of discrepant BI-RADS 0 recalls would have significantly lowered recall rate (from 3.4% to 2.8% at blinded double reading, p < 0.001, and from 2.8% to 2.5% at non-blinded double reading, p = 0.008), without a decrease in cancer detection rate (from 7.5‰ to 7.3‰, p = 0.751, and from 6.6‰ to 6.5‰, p = 0.832, respectively) and program sensitivity (from 83.2% to 81.2%, p = 0.453, and from 76.0% to 74.6%, p = 0.667, respectively). Arbitration would have significantly increased the PPV at blinded double reading (from 22.3% to 26.3%, p = 0.015). CONCLUSION: We advise arbitration of discrepant BI-RADS 0 recalls, at (non-)blinded double reading of screening mammograms, to reduce recall rates and improve the PPV of recall at blinded double reading.

Time trends and inter-hospital variation in treatment and axillary staging of patients with ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast in the era of screening in Southern Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: To examine variation in time and place in axillary staging and treatment of patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast. METHODS: Trends in patients with DCIS recorded in the Eindhoven Cancer Registry diagnosed in 1991-2010 (n = 2449) were examined. RESULTS: The use of breast conserving surgery (BCS) went from 17% to 67% in 1991-2010 and administration of radiotherapy after BCS increased to 89%. Axillary lymph node dissection decreased to almost 0%, while sentinel node biopsy was performed in 65% of patients in 2010. The proportion who underwent BCS varied between hospitals from 49% to 80%; the proportion without axillary staging ranged from 21% to 60%. Patients with screen-detected DCIS were more likely to receive BCS. CONCLUSION: There was considerable variation in the use of BCS, radiotherapy, and axillary staging of DCIS over time and between hospitals. Patients with DCIS were more likely to be treated with BCS if their disease was detected by screening.

Current techniques for assessment of upper extremity vasculature prior to hemodialysis vascular access creation.

Vascular access problems lead to increased patient morbidity and mortality and place a large burden on care facilities, manpower and costs. Autogenous arteriovenous fistulas (AVF) are preferred over arteriovenous grafts (AVG) because of a lower incidence of vascular access related complications. An aggressive increase in the utilization of AVF, however, results in an increased incidence of AVF early failure and non-maturation. Increasing evidence suggests that routine preoperative assessment results in an increased utilization of functioning AVF by better selection of adequate vessels. To date, the reproducibility and standardization of assessment protocols are lacking and assessment of a single morphological parameter has not enabled adequate prediction of postoperative AVF function for individual patients. In this paper, we provide an overview of available diagnostic modalities and parameters that potentially enable better selection of adequate vessels for successful AVF creation.

Mammography screening in the Netherlands: delay in the diagnosis of breast cancer after breast cancer screening.

In a prospective study we determined the frequency and causes of delay in the diagnosis of breast cancer after suspicious screening mammography. We included all women aged 50-75 years who underwent biennial screening mammography in the southern breast cancer screening region of the Netherlands between 1 January 1996 and 1 January 2002. Clinical data, breast imaging reports, biopsy results and breast surgery reports were collected of all women with a positive screening result with a minimum of 2-year follow-up. Of 153 969 mammographic screening examinations, 1615 (1.05%) were positive screens. Breast cancer was diagnosed in 770 (47.9%) of 1607 women for whom follow-up information was available, yielding a cancer detection rate of 5.0 per 1000 women screened. Breast cancer was diagnosed within 3 months following a positive screen in 722 cases (93.8%). The diagnostic delay was 4-6, 7-12 and 13-24 months, respectively, in 11 (1.4%), 24 (3.1%) and nine (1.2%) patients. In four other patients (0.5%), breast cancer was diagnosed after a repeat positive screen, resulting in a diagnostic delay of 25-27 months. Reasons for a diagnostic delay >3 months were erroneous mammographic interpretation of suspicious lesions as benign or probably benign lesions (33 cases), benign biopsies from a malignant lesion (10), and omission to biopsy or remove a lesion that was suspicious at breast imaging (4) or core biopsy (1). We conclude that there is room for improvement in the workup of patients with a positive screening mammography, as seen from data in this screening region. To improve the workup, we suggest that other breast cancer screening programmes also identify delay in breast cancer diagnosis after a positive screen.