Toward the breast screening balance sheet: cumulative risk of false positives for annual versus biennial mammograms commencing at age 40 or 50

Prediction of breast cancer risk for sisters of women attending screening

BACKGROUND

Risk assessment is important for breast cancer prevention and early detection. We aimed to examine whether common risk factors, mammographic features, and breast cancer risk prediction scores of a woman were associated with breast cancer risk for her sisters.

METHODS

We included 53 051 women from the Karolinska Mammography Project for Risk Prediction of Breast Cancer (KARMA) study. Established risk factors were derived using self-reported questionnaires, mammograms, and single nucleotide polymorphism genotyping. Using the Swedish Multi-Generation Register, we identified 32 198 sisters of the KARMA women (including 5352 KARMA participants and 26 846 nonparticipants). Cox models were used to estimate the hazard ratios of breast cancer for both women and their sisters, respectively.

RESULTS

A higher breast cancer polygenic risk score, a history of benign breast disease, and higher breast density in women were associated with an increased risk of breast cancer for both women and their sisters. No statistically significant association was observed between breast microcalcifications and masses in women and breast cancer risk for their sisters. Furthermore, higher breast cancer risk scores in women were associated with an increased risk of breast cancer for their sisters. Specifically, the hazard ratios for breast cancer per 1 standard deviation increase in age-adjusted KARMA, Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm (BOADICEA), and Tyrer-Cuzick risk scores were 1.16 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.07 to 1.27), 1.23 (95% CI = 1.12 to 1.35), and 1.21 (95% CI = 1.11 to 1.32), respectively.

CONCLUSION

A woman's breast cancer risk factors are associated with her sister's breast cancer risk. However, the clinical utility of these findings requires further investigation.

Current Available Computer-Aided Detection Catches Cancer but Requires a Human Operator

Introduction: This study intends to show that the current widely used computer-aided detection (CAD) may be helpful, but it is not an adequate replacement for the human input required to interpret mammograms accurately. However, this is not to discredit CAD’s ability but to further encourage the adoption of artificial intelligence-based algorithms into the toolset of radiologists.

Methods: This study will use Hologic (Marlborough, MA, USA) and General Electric (Boston, MA, USA) CAD read images provided by patients found to be Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) 6 from 2019 to 2020. In addition, patient information will be pulled from our institution’s emergency medical record to confirm the findings seen in the pathologist report and the radiology read.

Results: Data from a total of 24 female breast cancer patients from January 31st 2019 to April 31st 2020, was gathered from our institution’s emergency medical record with restrictions in patient numbers due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Within our patient population, CAD imaging was shown to be statistically significant in misidentifying breast cancer, while radiologist interpretation still proves to be the most effective tool.

Conclusion: Despite a low sample size due to COVID-19, this study found that CAD did have significant difficulty in differentiating benign vs. malignant lesions. CAD should not be ignored, but it is not specific enough. Although CAD often marks cancer, it also marks several areas that are not cancer. CAD is currently best used as an additional tool for the radiologist.

Combined Benefit of Quantitative Three-Compartment Breast Image Analysis and Mammography Radiomics in the Classification of Breast Masses in a Clinical Data Set

Purpose To investigate the combination of mammography radiomics and quantitative three-compartment breast (3CB) image analysis of dual-energy mammography to limit unnecessary benign breast biopsies. Materials and Methods For this prospective study, dual-energy craniocaudal and mediolateral oblique mammograms were obtained immediately before biopsy in 109 women (mean age, 51 years; range, 31-85 years) with Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System category 4 or 5 breast masses (35 invasive cancers, 74 benign) from 2013 through 2017. The three quantitative compartments of water, lipid, and protein thickness at each pixel were calculated from the attenuation at high and low energy by using a within-image phantom. Masses were automatically segmented and features were extracted from the low-energy mammograms and the quantitative compartment images. Tenfold cross-validations using a linear discriminant classifier with predefined feature signatures helped differentiate between malignant and benign masses by means of (a) water-lipid-protein composition images alone, (b) mammography radiomics alone, and (c) a combined image analysis of both. Positive predictive value of biopsy performed (PPV₃) at maximum sensitivity was the primary performance metric, and results were compared with those for conventional diagnostic digital mammography. Results The PPV₃ for conventional diagnostic digital mammography in our data set was 32.1% (35 of 109; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 23.9%, 41.3%), with a sensitivity of 100%. In comparison, combined mammography radiomics plus quantitative 3CB image analysis had PPV₃ of 49% (34 of 70; 95% CI: 36.5%, 58.9%; P < .001), with a sensitivity of 97% (34 of 35; 95% CI: 90.3%, 100%; P < .001) and 35.8% (39 of 109) fewer total biopsies (P < .001). Conclusion Quantitative three-compartment breast image analysis of breast masses combined with mammography radiomics has the potential to reduce unnecessary breast biopsies. © RSNA, 2018 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Is the false-positive rate in mammography in North America too high?

The practice of investigating pathological abnormalities in the breasts of females who are asymptomatic is primarily employed using X-ray mammography. The importance of breast screening is reflected in the mortality-based benefits observed among females who are found to possess invasive breast carcinoma prior to the manifestation of clinical symptoms. It is estimated that population-based screening constitutes a 17% reduction in the breast cancer mortality rate among females affected by invasive breast carcinoma. In spite of the significant utility that screening confers in those affected by invasive cancer, limitations associated with screening manifest as potential harms affecting individuals who are free of invasive disease. Disease-free and benign tumour-bearing individuals who are subjected to diagnostic work-up following a screening examination constitute a population of cases referred to as false positives (FPs). This article discusses factors contributing to the FP rate in mammography and extends the discussion to an assessment of the consequences associated with FP reporting. We conclude that the mammography FP rate in North America is in excess based upon the observation of overtreatment of in situ lesions and the disproportionate distribution of detriment and benefit among the population of individuals recalled for diagnostic work-up subsequent to screening. To address the excessive incidence of FPs in mammography, we investigate solutions that may be employed to remediate the current status of the FP rate. Subsequently, it can be suggested that improvements in the breast-screening protocol, medical litigation risk, image interpretation software and the implementation of image acquisition modalities that overcome superimposition effects are promising solutions.

Statistical Methods for Estimating the Cumulative Risk of Screening Mammography Outcomes

BACKGROUND

This study illustrates alternative statistical methods for estimating cumulative risk of screening mammography outcomes in longitudinal studies.

METHODS

Data from the US Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) and the Nijmegen Breast Cancer Screening Program in the Netherlands were used to compare four statistical approaches to estimating cumulative risk. We estimated cumulative risk of false-positive recall and screen-detected cancer after 10 screening rounds using data from 242,835 women ages 40 to 74 years screened at the BCSC facilities in 1993-2012 and from 17,297 women ages 50 to 74 years screened in Nijmegen in 1990-2012.

RESULTS

In the BCSC cohort, a censoring bias model estimated bounds of 53.8% to 59.3% for false-positive recall and 2.4% to 7.6% for screen-detected cancer, assuming 10% increased or decreased risk among women screened for one additional round. In the Nijmegen cohort, false-positive recall appeared to be associated with subsequent discontinuation of screening leading to overestimation of risk of a false-positive recall based on adjusted discrete-time survival models. Bounds estimated by the censoring bias model were 11.0% to 19.9% for false-positive recall and 4.2% to 9.7% for screen-detected cancer.

CONCLUSION

Choice of statistical methodology can substantially affect cumulative risk estimates. The censoring bias model is appropriate under a variety of censoring mechanisms and provides bounds for cumulative risk estimates under varying degrees of dependent censoring.

IMPACT

This article illustrates statistical methods for estimating cumulative risks of cancer screening outcomes, which will be increasingly important as screening test recommendations proliferate.

The mammography debate, round two: science, smoke and mirrors

Regrettably, some aspects of the breast cancer screening debate display their own uniquely obfuscating argumentation, more smoke and mirrors than scientific clarity. [...]

Towards personalized screening: Cumulative risk of breast cancer screening outcomes in women with and without a first-degree relative with a history of breast cancer

Several reviews have estimated the balance of benefits and harms of mammographic screening in the general population. The balance may, however, differ between individuals with and without family history. Therefore, our aim is to assess the cumulative risk of screening outcomes; screen-detected breast cancer, interval cancer, and false-positive results, in women screenees aged 50-75 and 40-75, with and without a first-degree relative with a history of breast cancer at the start of screening. Data on screening attendance, recall and breast cancer detection were collected for each woman living in Nijmegen (The Netherlands) since 1975. We used a discrete time survival model to calculate the cumulative probability of each major screening outcome over 19 screening rounds. Women with a family history of breast cancer had a higher risk of all screening outcomes. For women screened from age 50-75, the cumulative risk of screen-detected breast cancer, interval cancer and false-positive results were 9.0, 4.4 and 11.1% for women with a family history and 6.3, 2.7 and 7.3% for women without a family history, respectively. The results for women 40-75 followed the same pattern for women screened 50-75 for cancer outcomes, but were almost doubled for false-positive results. To conclude, women with a first-degree relative with a history of breast cancer are more likely to experience benefits and harms of screening than women without a family history. To complete the balance and provide risk-based screening recommendations, the breast cancer mortality reduction and overdiagnosis should be estimated for family history subgroups.