Screening mammography frequency following dense breast notification among a predominantly Hispanic/Latina screening cohort.

PURPOSE: Nationally legislated dense breast notification (DBN) informs women of their breast density (BD) and the impact of BD on breast cancer risk and detection, but consequences for screening participation are unclear. We evaluated the association of DBN in New York State (NYS) with subsequent screening mammography in a largely Hispanic/Latina cohort. METHODS: Women aged 40-60 were surveyed in their preferred language (33% English, 67% Spanish) during screening mammography from 2016 to 2018. We used clinical BD classification from mammography records from 2013 (NYS DBN enactment) through enrollment (baseline) to create a 6-category variable capturing prior and new DBN receipt (sent only after clinically dense mammograms). We used this variable to compare the number of subsequent mammograms (0, 1, ≥ 2) from 10 to 30 months after baseline using ordinal logistic regression. RESULTS: In a sample of 728 women (78% foreign-born, 72% Hispanic, 46% high school education or less), first-time screeners and women who received DBN for the first time after prior non-dense mammograms had significantly fewer screening mammograms within 30 months of baseline (Odds Ratios range: 0.33 (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.12-0.85) to 0.38 (95% CI 0.17-0.82)) compared to women with prior mammography but no DBN. There were no differences in subsequent mammogram frequency between women with multiple DBN and those who never received DBN. Findings were consistent across age, language, health literacy, and education groups. CONCLUSION: Women receiving their first DBN after previous non-dense mammograms have lower mammography participation within 2.5 years. DBN has limited influence on screening participation of first-time screeners and those with persistent dense mammograms.

Associations Between Perceived Discrimination, Screening Mammography, and Breast Cancer Stage at Diagnosis: A Prospective Cohort Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Despite higher breast cancer screening rates, black women still are more likely to have late-stage disease diagnosed. This disparity is influenced in part by structural and interpersonal racism. This prospective study sought to determine how interpersonal factors, including perceived discrimination, influence screening and stage of disease at diagnosis. METHODS: A prospective cohort study analyzed adult women with stages I to IV breast cancer from the Miami Breast Cancer Disparities Study. Perceived discrimination and mistrust of providers were assessed using previously validated questionnaires. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate the odds of screening mammography utilization and late-stage breast cancer at diagnosis. RESULTS: The study enrolled 342 patients (54.4 % Hispanic, 15.8 % white, and 17.3 % black). Multivariate regression, after control for both individual- and neighborhood-level factors, showed that a higher level of perceived discrimination was associated with greater odds of late-stage disease (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.06; range, 1.01-1.12); p = 0.022) and lower odds of screening mammography (aOR, 0.96; range, 0.92-0.99; p = 0.046). A higher level of perceived discrimination also was negatively correlated with multiple measures of provider trust. DISCUSSION: This study identified that high perceived level of discrimination is associated with decreased odds of ever having a screening mammogram and increased odds of late-stage disease. Efforts are needed to reach women who experience perceived discrimination and to improve the patient-provider trust relationship because these may be modifiable risk factors for barriers to screening and late-stage disease presentation, which ultimately have an impact on breast cancer survival.

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 surveillance in BRCA positive Sri Lankan women: health equity for a high-risk group at a limited resource setting.

BACKGROUND: BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants account for 90% of hereditary breast malignancies, incurring a lifetime breast cancer risk of 85% and 40-45% respectively, in affected individuals. Well-resourced health care settings offer genetic counselling and genetic screening for susceptible individuals, followed by intense breast cancer surveillance programmes for those identified at high risk of breast cancer. Such high standards of care are not available in countries with limited resources. This study assessed breast cancer surveillance behaviors among a cohort of BRCA positive Sri Lankan women. METHODS: A retrospective case review of all patients diagnosed with pathogenic variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes from 2015 to 2022 at the Human Genetics Unit, Faculty of Medicine, University of Colombo was carried out followed by telephone interviews of the respondents. Patients who were not contactable, deceased, undergone bilateral mastectomy and males were excluded from the interview component of the study. Standard descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data using SPSS statistics version 25. RESULTS: Only 25 patients were diagnosed during the study period:14/25 women responded (6/25 deceased, 3/25 non-contactable; 2/25 excluded). 71.4% (10/14) had performed breast self-examination during the preceding month; 35.7% (5/14) had a clinical breast examination (CBE), and 50% (7/14) had undergone a screening/diagnostic mammogram during the last one year. 28.5% (4/14) had undergone both mammography and CBE; 21.45% (3/14) mammogram only, 7.1% (1/14) had CBE only. 42.8%(6/14) had not undergone any surveillance(mammography, CBE or MRI). None had dual screening with mammogram and MRI. 85.71% (12/14) women expressed willingness to participate in a regular screening programme if made available. CONCLUSION: Fifty percent of BRCA1/2 positive women in our study had not undergone annual imaging-based surveillance by mammography or MRI, and none had undergone annual dual screening with mammography and MRI, indicating inadequate breast cancer surveillance in this high-risk group.

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.

A population health assessment of screening mammography on breast cancer mortality in North Carolina.

PURPOSE: To identify predictors of screening mammography use and the effect of screening mammography on breast cancer mortality in North Carolina. METHODS: This cross-sectional study integrated publicly available data from government and private data repositories to model predictors of screening mammography and breast cancer mortality in North Carolina. RESULTS: In North Carolina during 2008-2010, on average, 68.1% of women aged 40-74 years underwent a screening mammogram in the previous two years (range: 38.7%-82.1). The ordinary least squares (OLS) regression demonstrated counties experiencing persistent poverty have mammography screening rates that are 4.3% less, on average, than counties without persistent poverty (estimate (SE) = - 4.283 (2.105), p = 0.045). As the percentage of women with a college education increases, the mammography screening rates increase by approximately 0.3% (estimate (SE) = 0.319 (0.078), P < .001) and as the health literacy score increases, the mammography screening rate decreases by 0.3% (estimate (SE) = - 0.318 (0.104), p = 0.003). These variables explain 7.0% of the variability in mammographic screening rates. The OLS regression analysis demonstrated that age-adjusted breast cancer incidence (Estimate (SE) = 0.074 (0.024), p = 0.003) and health literacy score (estimate (SE) = - 0.175 (0.083), p = 0.039) are significantly related to breast cancer mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Demographic, socioeconomic, and environmental variables explain only a small percentage of the variability in the rates of screening mammography and breast cancer mortality in North Carolina. Advances in the available treatments are likely the major contributor to improving breast cancer mortality.

Failure of stereotactic core needle biopsy in women recalled for suspicious calcifications at screening mammography: frequency, causes, and final outcome in a multi-institutional, observational follow-up study.

OBJECTIVES: We determined the failure rate of stereotactic core needle biopsy (SCNB) and its causes and final outcome in women recalled for calcifications at screening mammography. METHODS: We included a consecutive series of 624,039 screens obtained in a Dutch screening region between January 2009 and July 2019. Radiology reports and pathology results were obtained of all recalled women during 2-year follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 3495 women (19.6% of 17,809 recalls) were recalled for suspicious calcifications. SCNB was indicated in 2818 women, of whom 12 had incomplete follow-up and another 12 women refused biopsy. DCIS or invasive cancer was diagnosed in 880 of the remaining 2794 women (31.5%). SCNB failed in 62 women (2.2%, 36/2794). These failures were mainly due to a too posterior (n = 30) or too superficial location (n = 17) of the calcifications or calcifications too faint for biopsy (n = 13). Of these 62 women, 10 underwent surgical biopsy, yielding one DCIS (intermediate grade) and two invasive cancers (one intermediate grade and one high grade) and another two women were diagnosed with DCIS (both high grade) at follow-up. Thus, the malignancy rate after SCNB failure was 8.1% (5/62). Calcifications were depicted neither at SCNB specimen radiography nor at pathology in 16 women after (repeated) SCNB (0.6%, 31/2732). None of them proved to have breast cancer at 2-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The failure rate of SCNB for suspicious calcifications is low but close surveillance is warranted, as breast cancer may be present in up to 8% of these women. KEY POINTS: • The failure rate of stereotactic core needle biopsy (SCNB) for calcifications recalled at screening mammography was 2.2%. • Failures were mainly due to calcifications that could not be reached by SCNB or calcifications too faint for biopsy. • The management after failed SCNB was various. At least, close surveillance with a low threshold for surgical biopsy is recommended as breast cancer may be present in up to 8% of women with SCNB failure.

Letter to the editor on article by Dinh et al. Is it ethical to incentivize mammography screening in Medicaid populations? - A policy review and conceptual analysis. By Stamatia Destounis, MD and Sarah Friedewald MD.

Letter to the Editor on article by Dinh et al- response to the authors comments on " Is it ethical to incentivize mammography screening in Medicaid populations? - A policy review and conceptual analysis".

Artificial Intelligence (AI) for Screening Mammography, From the AJR Special Series on AI Applications.

Artificial intelligence (AI) applications for screening mammography are being marketed for clinical use in the interpretative domains of lesion detection and diagnosis, triage, and breast density assessment and in the noninterpretive domains of breast cancer risk assessment, image quality control, image acquisition, and dose reduction. Evidence in support of these nascent applications, particularly for lesion detection and diagnosis, is largely based on multireader studies with cancer-enriched datasets rather than rigorous clinical evaluation aligned with the application's specific intended clinical use. This article reviews commercial AI algorithms for screening mammography that are currently available for clinical practice, their use, and evidence supporting their performance. Clinical implementation considerations, such as workflow integration, governance, and ethical issues, are also described. In addition, the future of AI for screening mammography is discussed, including the development of interpretive and noninterpretive AI applications and strategic priorities for research and development.

Diagnostic Evaluation of Recalled Noncalcified Lesions Using Ultrasound Alone Versus Ultrasound Plus Additional Mammographic Views: A Prospective Study.

BACKGROUND. The diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) has been shown to be equal to that of diagnostic mammography. However, the value of additional mammographic views in diagnostic evaluations remains unclear. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to compare the performance of diagnostic breast ultrasound (US) alone with that of combined US and diagnostic mammography for specific noncalcified recalled abnormalities detected on screening DBT. METHODS. This was a prospective study with a single-arm management strategy. Women recalled for noncalcified lesions on screening DBT underwent initial diagnostic US as part of the study protocol. Additional diagnostic mammography was performed at the discretion of the radiologist. Imaging assessment decisions determined by BI-RADS assessments and management recommendations, biopsy outcomes, and follow-up were recorded using case report forms completed on the day of the diagnostic evaluation and stored in the electronic medical record. RESULTS. From July 10, 2017, to June 6, 2019, a total of 430 recalled noncalcified lesions in 399 women (mean age, 60 ± 12 [SD] years) were included. US alone was performed for 71.2% (306/430) of lesions, whereas US with diagnostic mammography was performed for 28.8% (124/430). Of the recalled lesions, 93.7% (178/190) of masses, 60.0% (51/85) of focal asymmetries, 46.1% (53/115) of asymmetries, 69.2% (9/13) of developing asymmetries, and 55.6% (15/27) of architectural distortions were evaluated with US alone. Of 93 lesions that underwent needle biopsy, 40.9% (38/93) were cancers, all of which were invasive. Thirty-five of 38 (92.1%) cancers were evaluated by US alone, whereas three (7.9%) were evaluated with US and diagnostic mammography. At a median follow-up of 25 months, six cancers were identified (three with US alone and three with US plus diagnostic mammography) in patients with initially benign workup. US alone had two false-negative cancers (one architectural distortion identified at follow-up and one mass biopsied stereotactically at initial detection). CONCLUSION. US alone is effective in the diagnostic evaluation of noncalcified masses recalled on screening tomosynthesis. For asymmetries, diagnostic mammography may be best without the need for additional US, whereas architectural distortions still warrant diagnostic mammography and US. CLINICAL IMPACT. Radiologists should consider performing US first for DBT-recalled noncalcified masses. Omitting diagnostic mammography when US is negative has a low false-negative rate.

Comparison of Outcomes for One-View Asymmetries Recalled From Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Versus Full-Field Digital Mammography Screening Examinations.

BACKGROUND. Recall rates are lower for digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) than for full-field digital mammography (FFDM). This difference could have important implications with respect to one-view asymmetries given that missed cancers are often visible on one view. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study is to compare the outcomes of one-view asymmetries recalled from DBT versus FFDM screening examinations and to determine predictors of malignancy among recalled asymmetries. METHODS. This retrospective study first determined recall rates associated with one-view asymmetries for screening mammography performed using DBT and FFDM from July 14, 2016, through July 14, 2020. Further analyses included patients recalled for a one-view asymmetry who completed subsequent diagnostic workup and all recommended follow-up. Patient and cancer characteristics were extracted from the electronic health record. RESULTS. The recall rate associated with asymmetries was lower for DBT screening (2.5% [3169/128,755]) than for FFDM screening (3.4% [815/23,898]) (p < .001). Further analyses of patients who completed diagnostic workup and subsequent follow-up included 3119 patients (mean age, 57 years) for DBT screening and 811 patients (mean age, 56 years) for FFDM screening. Distribution of final BI-RADS categories from subsequent diagnostic workup was not different between the two modalities (p > .99). The frequency of malignancy was not different between asymmetries recalled from DBT (1.7% [54/3119]) and FFDM (1.7% [14/811]) (p > .99). Malignant asymmetries identified on FFDM versus DBT were more frequently associated with architectural distortion on diagnostic workup (35.7% [5/14] vs 9.3% [5/54]) (p < .001) and were more commonly invasive ductal carcinoma (92.9% vs 57.4%) and less commonly invasive lobular carcinoma (0.0% vs 24.1%) (p = .05). In multivariable analysis, independent predictors of malignancy among recalled asymmetries from DBT were age (for 55-69 years, odds ratio [OR] = 2.40 [p = .04]; for ≥ 70 years, OR = 7.93 [p < .001]; reference, < 55 years) and breast density (not dense, OR = 2.47 [p = .001]; reference, dense breasts). CONCLUSION. Recalled asymmetries were less frequent for DBT than for FFDM. The malignancy rate was low for both modalities (1.7%). Age 55 years old and older and lower breast density predicted malignancy for DBT-recalled asymmetries. CLINICAL IMPACT. Our results support the use of DBT to reduce unnecessary recalls without altering PPV for asymmetry-associated malignancies. Patient factors should be considered when assessing whether a potential asymmetry on DBT screening represents overlapping fibroglandular tissue or a suspicious finding that requires diagnostic workup.

A High-Performance Deep Neural Network Model for BI-RADS Classification of Screening Mammography.

Globally, the incidence rate for breast cancer ranks first. Treatment for early-stage breast cancer is highly cost effective. Five-year survival rate for stage 0-2 breast cancer exceeds 90%. Screening mammography has been acknowledged as the most reliable way to diagnose breast cancer at an early stage. Taiwan government has been urging women without any symptoms, aged between 45 and 69, to have a screening mammogram bi-yearly. This brings about a large workload for radiologists. In light of this, this paper presents a deep neural network (DNN)-based model as an efficient and reliable tool to assist radiologists with mammographic interpretation. For the first time in the literature, mammograms are completely classified into BI-RADS categories 0, 1, 2, 3, 4A, 4B, 4C and 5. The proposed model was trained using block-based images segmented from a mammogram dataset of our own. A block-based image was applied to the model as an input, and a BI-RADS category was predicted as an output. At the end of this paper, the outperformance of this work is demonstrated by an overall accuracy of 94.22%, an average sensitivity of 95.31%, an average specificity of 99.15% and an area under curve (AUC) of 0.9723. When applied to breast cancer screening for Asian women who are more likely to have dense breasts, this model is expected to give a higher accuracy than others in the literature, since it was trained using mammograms taken from Taiwanese women.

Breast Density and Risk of Interval Cancers: The Effect of Annual Versus Biennial Screening Mammography Policies in Canada.

Regular screening mammography reduces breast cancer mortality. However, in women with dense breasts, the performance of screening mammography is reduced, which is reflected in higher interval cancer rates (ICR). In Canada, population-based screening mammography programs generally screen women biennially; however, some provinces and territories offer annual mammography for women with dense breast tissue routinely and/or on recommendation of the radiologist. This study compared the ICRs in those breast screening programs with a policy of annual vs. those with biennial screening for women with dense breasts. Among 148,575 women with dense breasts screened between 2008 to 2010, there were 288 invasive interval breast cancers; screening programs with policies offering annual screening for women with dense breasts had fewer interval cancers 63/70,814 (ICR 0.89/1000, 95% CI: 0.67-1.11) compared with those with policies of usual biennial screening 225/77,761 (ICR 1.45 /1000 (annualized), 95% CI: 1.19-1.72) i.e. 63% higher (p = 0.0016). In screening programs where radiologists' screening recommendations were able to be analyzed, a total of 76,103 women were screened, with 87 interval cancers; the ICR was lower for recommended annual (65/69,650, ICR 0.93/1000, 95% CI: 0.71, 1.16) versus recommended biennial screening (22/6,453, ICR 1.70/1000 (annualized), 95%CI: 0.70, 2.71)(p = 0.0605). Screening program policies of annual as compared with biennial screening in women with dense breasts had the greatest impact on reducing interval cancer rates. We review our results in the context of current dense breast notification in Canada.

Association between changes in mammographic density category and the risk of breast cancer: A nationwide cohort study in East-Asian women.

Breast density is strongly associated with breast cancer risk; however, studies on the association between density changes and breast cancer risk have controversial results. The aim of our study was to determine the association between breast density changes and breast cancer risk in East-Asian women. We included 3 301 279 women aged ≥40 years screened for breast cancer twice during 2009 to 2010 and 2011 to 2012. Data were obtained from the National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) database. Breast density was evaluated using the Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS). Relative risk (RR) and 5-year risk of developing breast cancer according to density category changes were calculated. Overall, 23.0% of the women had a higher breast density and 22.2% of the women had a lower breast density in second screening compared to the first. An increase in the BI-RADS density category between two subsequent mammographic screenings was associated with an increase in breast cancer risk and vice versa in terms of RR. The 5-year breast cancer risk was affected by the initial BI-RADS density category, changes in density category and patients' characteristics such as age, menopausal status and family history of breast cancer. In patients with breast cancer family history, the 5-year breast cancer risk was prominent, at a maximum of 2.39% (95% CI = 1.23-3.55) in women with breast density category of 2 to 4. Changes in the BI-RADS density category were associated with breast cancer risk. Longitudinal measures of BI-RADS density may be helpful in identifying high-risk women, especially those with a breast cancer family history.

Age distributions of breast cancer diagnosis and mortality by race and ethnicity in US women.

BACKGROUND: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) data from 1973-2010 have been used to show that minority women have disproportionately higher percentages of breast cancers diagnosed at younger ages in comparison with White women. METHODS: The authors analyzed SEER 21 invasive breast cancer incidence data for 2014-2017 and National Center for Health Statistics mortality data for 2014-2018 and compared invasive incidence and mortality by age in non-Hispanic Black (NH-Black), Asian American/Pacific Islander (AAPI), Native American, and Hispanic women with those in non-Hispanic White (NH-White) women. They evaluated incidence rates and percentages of invasive breast cancer cases and breast cancer deaths occurring before the age of 50 years along with advanced-stage incidence rates and percentages in minority women versus NH-White women. RESULTS: Recent SEER data showed that invasive breast cancers were diagnosed at significantly younger ages in minority women versus NH-White women. Among women diagnosed with invasive breast cancer, compared with NH-White women, minority women were 72% more likely to be diagnosed under the age of 50 years (relative risk [RR], 1.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.70-1.75), 58% more likely to be diagnosed with advanced-stage breast cancer under the age of 50 years (RR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.55-1.61), and 24% more likely to be diagnosed with advanced-stage (regional or distant) breast cancer at all ages (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.23-1.25). Among women dying of breast cancer, minority women were 127% more likely to die under the age of 50 years than NH-White women. CONCLUSIONS: NH-Black, AAPI, Native American, and Hispanic women have higher proportions of invasive breast cancers at younger ages and at advanced stages and breast cancer deaths at younger ages than NH-White women. LAY SUMMARY: This study analyzes the most recently available data on invasive breast cancers and breast cancer deaths in US women by age and race/ethnicity. Its findings show that non-Hispanic Black, Asian American/Pacific Islander, Native American, and Hispanic women have a higher percentage of invasive breast cancers at younger ages and at more advanced stages and a higher percentage of breast cancer deaths at younger ages than non-Hispanic White women.

Racial differences in no-show rates for screening mammography.

BACKGROUND: Differences in utilization of screening mammography partly explain the increased breast cancer mortality observed in African American (AA) women compared with non-Hispanic White women. However, the contribution of noncompliance from women who do not come for their scheduled screening mammography appointment (ie, no-shows) is unknown. The purpose of this study was to investigate racial differences in no-show rates for screening mammography. METHODS: Women scheduled for routine screening mammograms between January 2018 and March 2018 were identified from the Joanne Knight Breast Health Center at Siteman Cancer Center in St. Louis, Missouri. Using a case-control design, this study retrospectively identified patients who no-showed for their mammograms (cases) and randomly sampled an equal number of patients who completed their mammograms (controls). These participants were compared by race. The main outcome measure was whether AA race was associated with no-shows for screening mammography. RESULTS: During the study period, 5060 women were scheduled for screening mammography, and 316 (6.2%) did not keep their appointment (ie, they no-showed). Women who no-showed were more likely to be AA than women who kept their appointment (odds ratio, 2.64; 95% confidence interval, 1.90-3.67). Even after adjustments for marital status, insurance type, and place of residence, AA race was still significantly associated with no-shows for screening mammography. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified a no-show rate of 6.2% for screening mammography at the authors' institution. Women who no-showed were more likely to be AA than women who completed their mammogram even after adjustments for multiple factors. These data can be leveraged for future studies aimed at improving mammography attendance rates among AA women.

Variations in pathways and resource use in follow-up after abnormal mammography screening: a nationwide register-based study.

PURPOSE: Mammography screening reduces breast cancer mortality, but a successful screening programme depends on both high participation and a sufficient follow-up of abnormalities. This study investigated patterns of follow-up after abnormal screening mammography in Denmark, and whether the variation was associated with health care resource use. METHODS: We included 19,458 women aged 50-69 years with an abnormal screening mammography during a 3-year period of 2014-2016. Women were followed until the end of 2018. Their follow-up pathway was categorized in terms of the timeliness, appropriateness (i.e. whether all recommended diagnostic tests were utilized), and the ratio of benign vs. malignant surgeries. Further, we estimated health care resource use including post-diagnostic imaging and surgery procedures. RESULTS: Ninety-seven percent of women had a diagnostic follow-up test within 6 months and 94% of those had diagnostic procedures in accordance with the recommendations. The proportion with timely follow-up (i.e. within 1 month) was 83%, but varied significantly between administrative regions (p < 0.001), and also between women with a screen-detected cancer and those with a false-positive mammogram (87% vs. 81%, p < 0.001). The ratio between having a benign versus a malignant surgery was 1:8, but it varied depending on which tests were used for diagnosis. The average number of procedures was, generally, in accordance with the recommendations. CONCLUSION: In most cases, follow-up after abnormal screening mammography followed national recommendations. We nevertheless found that this was not always the case in certain subgroups and administrative regions.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on breast cancer screening volumes and patient screening behaviors.

PURPOSE: In order to facilitate targeted outreach, we sought to identify patient populations with a lower likelihood of returning for breast cancer screening after COVID-19-related imaging center closures. METHODS: Weekly total screening mammograms performed throughout 2019 (baseline year) and 2020 (COVID-19-impacted year) were compared. Demographic and clinical characteristics, including age, race, ethnicity, breast density, breast cancer history, insurance status, imaging facility type used, and need for interpreter, were compared between patients imaged from March 16 to October 31 in 2019 (baseline cohort) and 2020 (COVID-19-impacted cohort). Census data and an online map service were used to impute socioeconomic variables and calculate travel times for each patient. Logistic regression was used to identify patient characteristics associated with a lower likelihood of returning for screening after COVID-19-related closures. RESULTS: The year-over-year cumulative difference in screening mammogram volumes peaked in week 21, with 2962 fewer exams in the COVID-19-impacted year. By week 47, this deficit had reduced by 49.4% to 1498. A lower likelihood of returning for screening after COVID-19-related closures was independently associated with younger age (odds ratio (OR) 0.78, p < 0.001), residence in a higher poverty area (OR 0.991, p = 0.014), lack of health insurance (OR 0.65, p = 0.007), need for an interpreter (OR 0.68, p = 0.029), longer travel time (OR 0.998, p < 0.001), and utilization of mobile mammography services (OR 0.27, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Several patient factors are associated with a lower likelihood of returning for screening mammography after COVID-19-related closures. Knowledge of these factors can guide targeted outreach to vulnerable patients to facilitate breast cancer screening.

Association between radiologists' and facilities' characteristics and mammography screening detection of ductal carcinoma in situ.

PURPOSE: The aim of our study was, first, to measure association between radiologists and facilities characteristics and DCIS detection. Second, to assess whether those characteristics affect differently the likelihood of detection of DCIS versus invasive breast cancer. When applicable, we examined whether the identified characteristics were similarly associated with low-grade and high-grade DCIS detection. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 1,750,002 digital screening mammograms (2145 screen-detected DCIS) performed in the Quebec breast cancer screening program between 2007 and 2015 inclusively. The associations between radiologists' and facilities' characteristics and (1) the DCIS detection rate, (2) the invasive detection rate, and (3) the odds of DCIS on invasive detection were assess. For statistically significant associations in the latter analysis, analyses stratified by DCIS grade were performed. Multivariable logistic regression with generalized estimating equations estimates to account for correlation among mammograms was used. RESULTS: Compared to radiologists with recall rate between 5.0 and 9.9%, radiologists with recall rate between 15.0-19.9% and ≥ 20% reached a higher DCIS detection rate, with adjusted detection ratios of, respectively, 1.33 (95% confidence interval = 1.15-1.53) and 1.43 (95% confidence interval = 1.13-1.81). Increase in radiologist' recall rate was statistically significantly associated with an increase in detection of low/intermediate-grade DCIS (P < 0.001), while not in high-grade DCIS (P = 0.15). CONCLUSIONS: A major determinant of DCIS detection is the radiologists' recall rate. Abnormalities referred by radiologists with higher recall rates should be identified in order to understand how to decrease recall rate while keeping an optimal DCIS and invasive detection rate.

Cost-effectiveness of screening mammography in a low income country: a Markov simulation analysis.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is the most common cancer diagnosed in women. Screening mammography is the only imaging screening study for breast cancer with a proven. mortality benefit. This study aims to analyze the cost-effectiveness of screening mammography in Ethiopia. METHODS: Multistate Markov model was used for computer simulation to estimate cost and health benefits of screening mammography interventions for age-group of 40-49 years and 50-59 years. The cost-effectiveness analysis was made for 4 policies based on where the screening mammography procedures were conducted: government institution only, the private institution only, 50% ratio for each, and 10% private institution policy. Outputs were expressed in total cost, life-years gained (LYG) incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and incremental net monetary benefit (INMB). RESULTS: All 4 policies of annual screening mammography failed to achieve acceptable ICER and lead to a net loss in INMB. The lowest ICER value was for government institution-only policy with 3510.3 USD/LYG and 3224.9 USD/LYG both above the cost-effectiveness threshold of 2808.5 USD. The cost per single death averted for each group was 110,206.7 USD and 77,088.2 USD for age-group 40-49 years and 50-59 years respectively. CONCLUSION: Screening mammography could not be shown to be cost-effective in Ethiopia with the current low cost-effectiveness threshold. Alternative screening approach like annual clinical breast examination may need to be investigated.