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

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

Mammographic density and interval cancers in mammographic screening: Moving towards more personalized screening

PURPOSE

The European Society on Breast Imaging has recommended supplemental magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) every two to four years for women with mammographically dense breasts. This may not be feasible in many screening programs. Also, the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer suggests not implementing screening with MRI. By analyzing interval cancers and time from screening to diagnosis by density, we present alternative screening strategies for women with dense breasts.

METHODS

Our BreastScreen Norway cohort included 508 536 screening examinations, including 3125 screen-detected and 945 interval breast cancers. Time from screening to interval cancer was stratified by density measured by an automated software and classified into Volpara Density Grades (VDGs) 1-4. Examinations with volumetric density ≤3.4% were categorized as VDG1, 3.5%-7.4% as VDG2, 7.5%-15.4% as VDG3, and ≥15.5% as VDG4. Interval cancer rates were also determined by continuous density measures.

RESULTS

Median time from screening to interval cancer was 496 (IQR: 391-587) days for VDG1, 500 (IQR: 350-616) for VDG2, 482 (IQR: 309-595) for VDG3 and 427 (IQR: 266-577) for VDG4. A total of 35.9% of the interval cancers among VDG4 were detected within the first year of the biennial screening interval. For VDG2, 26.3% were detected within the first year. The highest annual interval cancer rate (2.7 per 1000 examinations) was observed for VDG4 in the second year of the biennial interval.

CONCLUSIONS

Annual screening of women with extremely dense breasts may reduce the interval cancer rate and increase program-wide sensitivity, especially in settings where supplemental MRI screening is not feasible.

Community-based Participatory Research: A Practical Guide for Radiologists

Community-based participatory research (CBPR) is defined by the Kellogg Community Health Scholars Program as a collaborative process that equitably involves all partners in the research process and recognizes the unique strengths that each community member brings. The CBPR process begins with a research topic of importance to the community, with the goal of combining knowledge and action with social change to improve community health and eliminate health disparities. CBPR engages and empowers affected communities to collaborate in defining the research question; sharing the study design process; collecting, analyzing, and disseminating the data; and implementing solutions. A CBPR approach in radiology has several potential applications, including removing limitations to high-quality imaging, improving secondary prevention, identifying barriers to technology access, and increasing diversity in the research participation for clinical trials. The authors provide an overview with the definitions of CBPR, explain how to conduct CBPR, and illustrate its applications in radiology. Finally, the challenges of CBPR and useful resources are discussed in detail. ©RSNA, 2023 Quiz questions for this article are available in the supplemental material.

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

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

Breast Imaging Research: Tips for Obtaining Funding and Sustaining a Successful Career

Many factors are involved in the successful development of early career breast imaging radiologists into independent investigators conducting impactful research. Key basic prerequisites for success include a motivated and resilient radiologist, institutional and departmental commitment to supporting early career physician-scientists, strong mentorship, and a flexible strategy for extramural funding that accounts for individualized professional goals. In this review, we describe these factors in greater detail, providing a practical overview for residents, fellows, and junior faculty who are interested in an academic career as a breast imaging radiologist engaged in original scientific research. We also describe the essential pieces of grant applications and summarize the professional milestones for early career physician-scientists as they look toward promotion to associate professor and sustained extramural funding.

Prioritizing Screening Mammograms for Immediate Interpretation and Diagnostic Evaluation on the Basis of Risk for Recall

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to develop a prioritization strategy for scheduling immediate screening mammographic interpretation and possible diagnostic evaluation.

METHODS

A population-based cohort with screening mammograms performed from 2012 to 2020 at 126 radiology facilities from 7 Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium registries was identified. Classification trees identified combinations of clinical history (age, BI-RADS® density, time since prior mammogram, history of false-positive recall or biopsy result), screening modality (digital mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis), and facility characteristics (profit status, location, screening volume, practice type, academic affiliation) that grouped screening mammograms by recall rate, with ≥12/100 considered high and ≥16/100 very high. An efficiency ratio was estimated as the percentage of recalls divided by the percentage of mammograms.

RESULTS

The study cohort included 2,674,051 screening mammograms in 925,777 women, with 235,569 recalls. The most important predictor of recall was time since prior mammogram, followed by age, history of false-positive recall, breast density, history of benign biopsy, and screening modality. Recall rates were very high for baseline mammograms (21.3/100; 95% confidence interval, 19.7-23.0) and high for women with ≥5 years since prior mammogram (15.1/100; 95% confidence interval, 14.3-16.1). The 9.2% of mammograms in subgroups with very high and high recall rates accounted for 19.2% of recalls, an efficiency ratio of 2.1 compared with a random approach. Adding women <50 years of age with dense breasts accounted for 20.3% of mammograms and 33.9% of recalls (efficiency ratio = 1.7). Results including facility-level characteristics were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

Prioritizing women with baseline mammograms or ≥5 years since prior mammogram for immediate interpretation and possible diagnostic evaluation could considerably reduce the number of women needing to return for diagnostic imaging at another visit.

External Validation of an Ensemble Model for Automated Mammography Interpretation by Artificial Intelligence

Importance

With a shortfall in fellowship-trained breast radiologists, mammography screening programs are looking toward artificial intelligence (AI) to increase efficiency and diagnostic accuracy. External validation studies provide an initial assessment of how promising AI algorithms perform in different practice settings.

Objective

To externally validate an ensemble deep-learning model using data from a high-volume, distributed screening program of an academic health system with a diverse patient population.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this diagnostic study, an ensemble learning method, which reweights outputs of the 11 highest-performing individual AI models from the Digital Mammography Dialogue on Reverse Engineering Assessment and Methods (DREAM) Mammography Challenge, was used to predict the cancer status of an individual using a standard set of screening mammography images. This study was conducted using retrospective patient data collected between 2010 and 2020 from women aged 40 years and older who underwent a routine breast screening examination and participated in the Athena Breast Health Network at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA).

Main Outcomes and Measures

Performance of the challenge ensemble method (CEM) and the CEM combined with radiologist assessment (CEM+R) were compared with diagnosed ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive cancers within a year of the screening examination using performance metrics, such as sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC).

Results

Evaluated on 37 317 examinations from 26 817 women (mean [SD] age, 58.4 [11.5] years), individual model AUROC estimates ranged from 0.77 (95% CI, 0.75-0.79) to 0.83 (95% CI, 0.81-0.85). The CEM model achieved an AUROC of 0.85 (95% CI, 0.84-0.87) in the UCLA cohort, lower than the performance achieved in the Kaiser Permanente Washington (AUROC, 0.90) and Karolinska Institute (AUROC, 0.92) cohorts. The CEM+R model achieved a sensitivity (0.813 [95% CI, 0.781-0.843] vs 0.826 [95% CI, 0.795-0.856]; P = .20) and specificity (0.925 [95% CI, 0.916-0.934] vs 0.930 [95% CI, 0.929-0.932]; P = .18) similar to the radiologist performance. The CEM+R model had significantly lower sensitivity (0.596 [95% CI, 0.466-0.717] vs 0.850 [95% CI, 0.766-0.923]; P < .001) and specificity (0.803 [95% CI, 0.734-0.861] vs 0.945 [95% CI, 0.936-0.954]; P < .001) than the radiologist in women with a prior history of breast cancer and Hispanic women (0.894 [95% CI, 0.873-0.910] vs 0.926 [95% CI, 0.919-0.933]; P = .004).

Conclusions and Relevance

This study found that the high performance of an ensemble deep-learning model for automated screening mammography interpretation did not generalize to a more diverse screening cohort, suggesting that the model experienced underspecification. This study suggests the need for model transparency and fine-tuning of AI models for specific target populations prior to their clinical adoption.

Radiologist Preferences for Artificial Intelligence-Based Decision Support During Screening Mammography Interpretation

BACKGROUND

Artificial intelligence (AI) may improve cancer detection and risk prediction during mammography screening, but radiologists' preferences regarding its characteristics and implementation are unknown.

PURPOSE

To quantify how different attributes of AI-based cancer detection and risk prediction tools affect radiologists' intentions to use AI during screening mammography interpretation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Through qualitative interviews with radiologists, we identified five primary attributes for AI-based breast cancer detection and four for breast cancer risk prediction. We developed a discrete choice experiment based on these attributes and invited 150 US-based radiologists to participate. Each respondent made eight choices for each tool between three alternatives: two hypothetical AI-based tools versus screening without AI. We analyzed samplewide preferences using random parameters logit models and identified subgroups with latent class models.

RESULTS

Respondents (n = 66; 44% response rate) were from six diverse practice settings across eight states. Radiologists were more interested in AI for cancer detection when sensitivity and specificity were balanced (94% sensitivity with <25% of examinations marked) and AI markup appeared at the end of the hanging protocol after radiologists complete their independent review. For AI-based risk prediction, radiologists preferred AI models using both mammography images and clinical data. Overall, 46% to 60% intended to adopt any of the AI tools presented in the study; 26% to 33% approached AI enthusiastically but were deterred if the features did not align with their preferences.

CONCLUSION

Although most radiologists want to use AI-based decision support, short-term uptake may be maximized by implementing tools that meet the preferences of dissuadable users.

Multilevel Factors Associated With Time to Biopsy After Abnormal Screening Mammography Results by Race and Ethnicity

Importance

Diagnostic delays in breast cancer detection may be associated with later-stage disease and higher anxiety, but data on multilevel factors associated with diagnostic delay are limited.

Objective

To evaluate individual-, neighborhood-, and health care-level factors associated with differences in time from abnormal screening to biopsy among racial and ethnic groups.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This prospective cohort study used data from women aged 40 to 79 years who had abnormal results in screening mammograms conducted in 109 imaging facilities across 6 US states between 2009 and 2019. Data were analyzed from February 21 to November 4, 2021.

Exposures

Individual-level factors included self-reported race and ethnicity, age, family history of breast cancer, breast density, previous breast biopsy, and time since last mammogram; neighborhood-level factors included geocoded education and income based on residential zip codes and rurality; and health care-level factors included mammogram modality, screening facility academic affiliation, and facility onsite biopsy service availability. Data were also assessed by examination year.

Main Outcome and Measures

The main outcome was unadjusted and adjusted relative risk (RR) of no biopsy within 30, 60, and 90 days using sequential log-binomial regression models. A secondary outcome was unadjusted and adjusted median time to biopsy using accelerated failure time models.

Results

A total of 45 186 women (median [IQR] age at screening, 56 [48-65] years) with 46 185 screening mammograms with abnormal results were included. Of screening mammograms with abnormal results recommended for biopsy, 15 969 (34.6%) were not resolved within 30 days, 7493 (16.2%) were not resolved within 60 days, and 5634 (12.2%) were not resolved within 90 days. Compared with White women, there was increased risk of no biopsy within 30 and 60 days for Asian (30 days: RR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.31-2.10; 60 days: RR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.15-2.18), Black (30 days: RR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.30-1.78; 60 days: 1.39; 95% CI, 1.22-1.60), and Hispanic (30 days: RR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.24-1.81; 60 days: 1.38; 95% CI, 1.11-1.71) women; however, the unadjusted risk of no biopsy within 90 days only persisted significantly for Black women (RR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.11-1.47). Sequential adjustment for selected individual-, neighborhood-, and health care-level factors, exclusive of screening facility, did not substantially change the risk of no biopsy within 90 days for Black women (RR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.12-1.44). After additionally adjusting for screening facility, the increased risk for Black women persisted but showed a modest decrease (RR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.08-1.34).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study involving a diverse cohort of US women recommended for biopsy after abnormal results on screening mammography, Black women were the most likely to experience delays to diagnostic resolution after adjusting for multilevel factors. These results suggest that adjustment for multilevel factors did not entirely account for differences in time to breast biopsy, but unmeasured factors, such as systemic racism and other health care system factors, may impact timely diagnosis.

Diagnostic Mammography Performance across Racial and Ethnic Groups in a National Network of Community-Based Breast Imaging Facilities

BACKGROUND

We evaluated differences in diagnostic mammography performance based on women's race/ethnicity.

METHODS

This cohort study included 267,868 diagnostic mammograms performed to evaluate screening mammogram findings at 98 facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium between 2005 and 2017. Mammogram assessments were recorded prospectively and breast cancers occurring within one year were ascertained. Performance statistics were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for each racial/ethnic group. Multivariable regression was used to control for personal characteristics and imaging facility.

RESULTS

Among non-Hispanic White (70%), non-Hispanic Black (13%), Asian/Pacific Islander (10%), and Hispanic (7%) women, the invasive cancer detection rate (iCDR, per 1,000 mammograms) and positive predictive value (PPV2) were highest among non-Hispanic White women (iCDR, 35.8; 95% CI, 35.0-36.7; PPV2, 27.8; 95% CI, 27.3-28.3) and lowest among Hispanic women (iCDR, 22.3; 95% CI, 20.2-24.6; PPV2, 19.4; 95% CI, 18.0-20.9). Short interval follow-up recommendations were most common among non-Hispanic Black women [(31.0%; 95% CI, 30.6%-31.5%) vs. other groups, range, 16.6%-23.6%]. False-positive biopsy recommendations were most common among Asian/Pacific Islander women [per 1,000 mammograms: 169.2; 95% CI, 164.8-173.7) vs. other groups, range, 126.5-136.1]. Some differences were explained by adjusting for receipt of diagnostic ultrasound or MRI for iCDR and imaging facility for short-interval follow-up. Other differences changed little after adjustment.

CONCLUSIONS

Diagnostic mammography performance varied across racial/ethnic groups. Addressing characteristics related to imaging facility and access, rather than personal characteristics, may help reduce some of these disparities.

IMPACT

Diagnostic mammography performance studies should include racially and ethnically diverse populations to provide an accurate view of the population-level effects.

Association of Screening With Digital Breast Tomosynthesis vs Digital Mammography With Risk of Interval Invasive and Advanced Breast Cancer

Importance

Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) was developed with the expectation of improving cancer detection in women with dense breasts. Studies are needed to evaluate interval invasive and advanced breast cancer rates, intermediary outcomes related to breast cancer mortality, by breast density and breast cancer risk.

Objective

To evaluate whether DBT screening is associated with a lower likelihood of interval invasive cancer and advanced breast cancer compared with digital mammography by extent of breast density and breast cancer risk.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Cohort study of 504 427 women aged 40 to 79 years who underwent 1 003 900 screening digital mammography and 375 189 screening DBT examinations from 2011 through 2018 at 44 US Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) facilities with follow-up for cancer diagnoses through 2019 by linkage to state or regional cancer registries.

Exposures

Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) breast density; BCSC 5-year breast cancer risk.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Rates per 1000 examinations of interval invasive cancer within 12 months of screening mammography and advanced breast cancer (prognostic pathologic stage II or higher) within 12 months of screening mammography, both estimated with inverse probability weighting.

Results

Among 504 427 women in the study population, the median age at time of mammography was 58 years (IQR, 50-65 years). Interval invasive cancer rates per 1000 examinations were not significantly different for DBT vs digital mammography (overall, 0.57 vs 0.61, respectively; difference, -0.04; 95% CI, -0.14 to 0.06; P = .43) or among all the 836 250 examinations with BCSC 5-year risk less than 1.67% (low to average-risk) or all the 413 061 examinations with BCSC 5-year risk of 1.67% or higher (high risk) across breast density categories. Advanced cancer rates were not significantly different for DBT vs digital mammography among women at low to average risk or at high risk with almost entirely fatty, scattered fibroglandular densities, or heterogeneously dense breasts. Advanced cancer rates per 1000 examinations were significantly lower for DBT vs digital mammography for the 3.6% of women with extremely dense breasts and at high risk of breast cancer (13 291 examinations in the DBT group and 31 300 in the digital mammography group; 0.27 vs 0.80 per 1000 examinations; difference, -0.53; 95% CI, -0.97 to -0.10) but not for women at low to average risk (10 611 examinations in the DBT group and 37 796 in the digital mammography group; 0.54 vs 0.42 per 1000 examinations; difference, 0.12; 95% CI, -0.09 to 0.32).

Conclusions and Relevance

Screening with DBT vs digital mammography was not associated with a significant difference in risk of interval invasive cancer and was associated with a significantly lower risk of advanced breast cancer among the 3.6% of women with extremely dense breasts and at high risk of breast cancer. No significant difference was observed in the 96.4% of women with nondense breasts, heterogeneously dense breasts, or with extremely dense breasts not at high risk.

Artificial Intelligence Evaluation of 122 969 Mammography Examinations from a Population-based Screening Program

Background Artificial intelligence (AI) has shown promising results for cancer detection with mammographic screening. However, evidence related to the use of AI in real screening settings remain sparse. Purpose To compare the performance of a commercially available AI system with routine, independent double reading with consensus as performed in a population-based screening program. Furthermore, the histopathologic characteristics of tumors with different AI scores were explored. Materials and Methods In this retrospective study, 122 969 screening examinations from 47 877 women performed at four screening units in BreastScreen Norway from October 2009 to December 2018 were included. The data set included 752 screen-detected cancers (6.1 per 1000 examinations) and 205 interval cancers (1.7 per 1000 examinations). Each examination had an AI score between 1 and 10, where 1 indicated low risk of breast cancer and 10 indicated high risk. Threshold 1, threshold 2, and threshold 3 were used to assess the performance of the AI system as a binary decision tool (selected vs not selected). Threshold 1 was set at an AI score of 10, threshold 2 was set to yield a selection rate similar to the consensus rate (8.8%), and threshold 3 was set to yield a selection rate similar to an average individual radiologist (5.8%). Descriptive statistics were used to summarize screening outcomes. Results A total of 653 of 752 screen-detected cancers (86.8%) and 92 of 205 interval cancers (44.9%) were given a score of 10 by the AI system (threshold 1). Using threshold 3, 80.1% of the screen-detected cancers (602 of 752) and 30.7% of the interval cancers (63 of 205) were selected. Screen-detected cancer with AI scores not selected using the thresholds had favorable histopathologic characteristics compared to those selected; opposite results were observed for interval cancer. Conclusion The proportion of screen-detected cancers not selected by the artificial intelligence (AI) system at the three evaluated thresholds was less than 20%. The overall performance of the AI system was promising according to cancer detection. © RSNA, 2022.

Artificial Intelligence Evaluation of 122 969 Mammography Examinations from a Population-based Screening Program

Background Artificial intelligence (AI) has shown promising results for cancer detection with mammographic screening. However, evidence related to the use of AI in real screening settings remain sparse. Purpose To compare the performance of a commercially available AI system with routine, independent double reading with consensus as performed in a population-based screening program. Furthermore, the histopathologic characteristics of tumors with different AI scores were explored. Materials and Methods In this retrospective study, 122 969 screening examinations from 47 877 women performed at four screening units in BreastScreen Norway from October 2009 to December 2018 were included. The data set included 752 screen-detected cancers (6.1 per 1000 examinations) and 205 interval cancers (1.7 per 1000 examinations). Each examination had an AI score between 1 and 10, where 1 indicated low risk of breast cancer and 10 indicated high risk. Threshold 1, threshold 2, and threshold 3 were used to assess the performance of the AI system as a binary decision tool (selected vs not selected). Threshold 1 was set at an AI score of 10, threshold 2 was set to yield a selection rate similar to the consensus rate (8.8%), and threshold 3 was set to yield a selection rate similar to an average individual radiologist (5.8%). Descriptive statistics were used to summarize screening outcomes. Results A total of 653 of 752 screen-detected cancers (86.8%) and 92 of 205 interval cancers (44.9%) were given a score of 10 by the AI system (threshold 1). Using threshold 3, 80.1% of the screen-detected cancers (602 of 752) and 30.7% of the interval cancers (63 of 205) were selected. Screen-detected cancer with AI scores not selected using the thresholds had favorable histopathologic characteristics compared to those selected; opposite results were observed for interval cancer. Conclusion The proportion of screen-detected cancers not selected by the artificial intelligence (AI) system at the three evaluated thresholds was less than 20%. The overall performance of the AI system was promising according to cancer detection. © RSNA, 2022.

Cumulative Probability of False-Positive Results After 10 Years of Screening With Digital Breast Tomosynthesis vs Digital Mammography

Importance

Breast cancer screening with digital breast tomosynthesis may decrease false-positive results compared with digital mammography.

Objective

To estimate the probability of receiving at least 1 false-positive result after 10 years of screening with digital breast tomosynthesis vs digital mammography in the US.

Design, Setting, and Participants

An observational comparative effectiveness study with data collected prospectively for screening examinations was performed between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2018, at 126 radiology facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Analysis included 903 495 individuals aged 40 to 79 years. Data analysis was conducted from February 9 to September 7, 2021.

Exposures

Screening modality, screening interval, age, and Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System breast density.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Cumulative risk of at least 1 false-positive recall for further imaging, short-interval follow-up recommendation, and biopsy recommendation after 10 years of annual or biennial screening with digital breast tomosynthesis vs digital mammography, accounting for competing risks of breast cancer diagnosis and death.

Results

In this study of 903 495 women, 2 969 055 nonbaseline screening examinations were performed with interpretation by 699 radiologists. Mean (SD) age of the women at the time of the screening examinations was 57.6 (9.9) years, and 58% of the examinations were in individuals younger than 60 years and 46% were performed in women with dense breasts. A total of 15% of examinations used tomosynthesis. For annual screening, the 10-year cumulative probability of at least 1 false-positive result was significantly lower with tomosynthesis vs digital mammography for all outcomes: 49.6% vs 56.3% (difference, -6.7; 95% CI, -7.4 to -6.1) for recall, 16.6% vs 17.8% (difference, -1.1; 95% CI, -1.7 to -0.6) for short-interval follow-up recommendation, and 11.2% vs 11.7% (difference, -0.5; 95% CI, -1.0 to -0.1) for biopsy recommendation. For biennial screening, the cumulative probability of a false-positive recall was significantly lower for tomosynthesis vs digital mammography (35.7% vs 38.1%; difference, -2.4; 95% CI, -3.4 to -1.5), but cumulative probabilities did not differ significantly by modality for short-interval follow-up recommendation (10.3% vs 10.5%; difference, -0.1; 95% CI, -0.7 to 0.5) or biopsy recommendation (6.6% vs 6.7%; difference, -0.1; 95% CI, -0.5 to 0.4). Decreases in cumulative probabilities of false-positive results with tomosynthesis vs digital mammography were largest for annual screening in women with nondense breasts (differences for recall, -6.5 to -12.8; short-interval follow-up, 0.1 to -5.2; and biopsy recommendation, -0.5 to -3.1). Regardless of modality, cumulative probabilities of false-positive results were substantially lower for biennial vs annual screening (overall recall, 35.7 to 38.1 vs 49.6 to 56.3; short-interval follow-up, 10.3 to 10.5 vs 16.6 to 17.8; and biopsy recommendation, 6.6 to 6.7 vs 11.2 to 11.7); older vs younger age groups (eg, among annual screening in women ages 70-79 vs 40-49, recall, 39.8 to 47.0 vs 60.8 to 68.0; short-interval follow-up, 13.3 to 14.2 vs 20.7 to 20.9; and biopsy recommendation, 9.1 to 9.3 vs 13.2 to 13.4); and women with entirely fatty vs extremely dense breasts (eg, among annual screening in women aged 50-59 years, recall, 29.1 to 36.3 vs 58.8 to 60.4; short-interval follow-up, 8.9 to 11.6 vs 19.5 to 19.8; and biopsy recommendation, 4.9 to 8.0 vs 15.1 to 15.3).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this comparative effectiveness study, 10-year cumulative probabilities of false-positive results were lower on digital breast tomosynthesis vs digital mammography. Biennial screening interval, older age, and nondense breasts were associated with larger reductions in false-positive probabilities than screening modality.

Breast biopsy patterns and findings among older women undergoing screening mammography: The role of age and comorbidity

INTRODUCTION

Limited evidence exists on the impact of age and comorbidity on biopsy rates and findings among older women.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We used data from 170,657 women ages 66-94 enrolled in the United States Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC). We estimated one-year rates of biopsy by type (any, fine-needle aspiration (FNA), core or surgical) and yield of the most invasive biopsy finding (benign, ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and invasive breast cancer) by age and comorbidity. Statistical significance was assessed using Wald statistics comparing coefficients estimated from logistic regression models adjusted for age, comorbidity, BCSC registry, and interaction between age and comorbidity.

RESULTS

Of 524,860 screening mammograms, 9830 biopsies were performed following 7930 exams (1.5%) within one year, specifically 5589 core biopsies (1.1%), 3422 (0.7%) surgical biopsies and 819 FNAs (0.2%). Biopsy rates per 1000 screens decreased with age (66-74:15.7, 95%CI:14.8-16.8), 75-84:14.5(13.5-15.6), 85-94:13.2(11.3,15.4), p_trend < 0.001) and increased with Charlson Comorbidity Score (CCS = 0:14.4 (13.5-15.3), CCS = 1:16.6 (15.2-18.1), CCS ≥2:19.0 (16.9-21.5), p_trend < 0.001).Biopsy rates increased with CCS at ages 66-74 and 75-84 but not 85-94. Core and surgical biopsy rates increased with CCS at ages 66-74 only. For each biopsy type, the yield of invasive breast cancer increased with age irrespective of comorbidity.

DISCUSSION

Women aged 66-84 with significant comorbidity in a breast cancer screening population had higher breast biopsy rates and similar rates of invasive breast cancer diagnosis than their counterparts with lower comorbidity. A considerable proportion of these diagnoses may represent overdiagnoses, given the high competing risk of death from non-breast-cancer causes among older women.