Advanced Breast Imaging Availability by Screening Facility Characteristics

Racial and Ethnic Variation in Diagnostic Mammography Performance among Women Reporting a Breast Lump

BACKGROUND

We evaluated diagnostic mammography among women with a breast lump to determine whether performance varied across racial and ethnic groups.

METHODS

This study included 51,014 diagnostic mammograms performed between 2005 and 2018 in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium among Asian/Pacific Islander (12%), Black (7%), Hispanic/Latina (6%), and White (75%) women reporting a lump. Breast cancers occurring within 1 year were ascertained from cancer registry linkages. Multivariable regression was used to adjust performance statistic comparisons for breast cancer risk factors, mammogram modality, demographics, additional imaging, and imaging facility.

RESULTS

Cancer detection rates were highest among Asian/Pacific Islander [per 1,000 exams, 84.2 (95% confidence interval (CI): 72.0-98.2)] and Black women [81.4 (95% CI: 69.4-95.2)] and lowest among Hispanic/Latina women [42.9 (95% CI: 34.2-53.6)]. Positive predictive values (PPV) were higher among Black [37.0% (95% CI: 31.2-43.3)] and White [37.0% (95% CI: 30.0-44.6)] women and lowest among Hispanic/Latina women [22.0% (95% CI: 17.2-27.7)]. False-positive results were most common among Asian/Pacific Islander women [per 1,000 exams, 183.9 (95% CI: 126.7-259.2)] and lowest among White women [112.4 (95% CI: 86.1-145.5)]. After adjustment, false-positive and cancer detection rates remained higher for Asian/Pacific Islander and Black women (vs. Hispanic/Latina and White). Adjusted PPV was highest among Asian/Pacific Islander women.

CONCLUSIONS

Among women with a lump, Asian/Pacific Islander and Black women were more likely to have cancer detected and more likely to receive a false-positive result compared with White and Hispanic/Latina women.

IMPACT

Strategies for optimizing diagnostic mammography among women with a lump may vary by racial/ethnic group, but additional factors that influence performance differences need to be identified. See related In the Spotlight, p. 1479.

Screening Mammography Utilization in the United States

Breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer mortality in adult women in the United States. Screening mammography reduces breast cancer mortality between 22% and 48%; however, screening mammography remains underutilized. Screening mammography utilization data are available from insurance claims, electronic medical records, and patient self-report via surveys, and each data source has unique benefits and challenges. Numerous barriers exist that adversely affect the use of screening mammography in the United States. This article will review screening mammography utilization in the United States, explore factors that impact utilization, and briefly discuss strategies to improve utilization.

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.

Physician Ordering of Screening Ultrasound: National Rates and Association With State-Level Breast Density Reporting Laws

PURPOSE

To describe factors associated with screening ultrasound ordering and determine whether adoption of state-level breast density reporting laws was associated with changes in ordering rates.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a cohort study using National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey data for 2007 to 2015. We included preventive office visits for women aged 40 to 74 years without breast symptoms and signs or additional reasons requiring ultrasound ordering. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify changes in ultrasound ordering rates pre- versus post-state-level density reporting laws, accounting for patient-, physician-, and practice-level characteristics. Analyses were weighted to account for the multistage probability sampling design of National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey.

RESULTS

Our sample included 12,787 visits over the 9-year study period. Overall, 28.9% (3,370 of 12,787) of women underwent a breast examination and 22.1% (2,442 of 12,787) had a screening mammogram ordered. Only 3.3% (379 of 12,787) had screening ultrasound ordered. Screening ultrasounds were ordered more frequently for younger women (rate ratio [RR] 0.8 per 10-year increase in age, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.6-0.9, P = .003) and at urban practices (RR 2.3, 95% CI: 1.1-5.0, P = .028), and less frequently in practices with computer reminders for ordering screening tests (RR 0.6, 95% CI: 0.3-0.9, P = .024). In multivariate analyses, the rate of ultrasound ordering did not change after adoption of density notification laws (RR 0.7, 95% CI: 0.3-2.0, P = .57).

CONCLUSION

The rate of screening ultrasound ordering remains low over time. There was no observed association between adoption of state-level density reporting laws and overall changes in ultrasound ordering.

The Effect of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Adoption on Facility-Level Breast Cancer Screening Volume

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine whether digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) adoption was associated with a decrease in screening mammography capacity across Breast Cancer Screening Consortium facilities, given concerns about increasing imaging and interpretation times associated with DBT.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Facility characteristics and examination volume data were collected prospectively from Breast Cancer Screening Consortium facilities that adopted DBT between 2011 and 2014. Interrupted time series analyses using Poisson regression models in which facility was considered a random effect were used to evaluate differences between monthly screening volumes during the 12-month preadoption period and the 12-month postadoption period (with the two periods separated by a 3-month lag) and to test for changes in month-to-month facility-level screening volume during the preadoption and postadoption periods.

RESULTS

Across five regional breast imaging registries, 15 of 83 facilities (18.1%) adopted DBT for screening between 2011 and 2014. Most had no academic affiliation (73.3% [11/15]), were nonprofit (80.0% [12/15]), and were general radiology practices (66.7% [10/15]). Facility-level monthly screening volumes were slightly higher during the postadoption versus preadoption periods (relative risk [RR], 1.09; 95% CI, 1.06-1.11). Monthly screening volumes remained relatively stable within the preadoption period (RR, 1.00 per month; 95% CI 1.00-1.01 per month) and the postadoption period (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 1.00-1.01 per month).

CONCLUSION

In a cohort of facilities with varied characteristics, monthly screening examination volumes did not decrease after DBT adoption.

Underutilization of Supplemental Magnetic Resonance Imaging Screening Among Patients at High Breast Cancer Risk

BACKGROUND

Women at high lifetime breast cancer risk may benefit from supplemental breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) screening, in addition to routine mammography screening for earlier cancer detection.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional study of 422,406 women undergoing routine mammography screening across 86 Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) facilities during calendar year 2012. We determined availability and use of on-site screening breast MRI services based on woman-level characteristics, including >20% lifetime absolute risk using the National Cancer Institute risk assessment tool. Multivariate analyses were performed to determine sociodemographic characteristics associated with on-site screening MRI use.

RESULTS

Overall, 43.9% (2403/5468) of women at high lifetime risk attended a facility with on-site breast MRI screening availability. However, only 6.6% (158/2403) of high-risk women obtained breast MRI screening within a 2-year window of their screening mammogram. Patient factors associated with on-site MRI screening use included younger (<40 years) age (odds ratio [OR] = 2.39, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.34-4.21), family history (OR = 1.72, 95% CI: 1.13-2.63), prior breast biopsy (OR = 2.09, 95% CI: 1.22-3.58), and postsecondary education (OR = 2.22, 95% CI: 1.04-4.74).

CONCLUSIONS

While nearly half of women at high lifetime breast cancer risk undergo routine screening mammography at a facility with on-site breast MRI availability, supplemental breast MRI remains widely underutilized among those who may benefit from earlier cancer detection. Future studies should evaluate whether other enabling factors such as formal risk assessment and patient awareness of high lifetime breast cancer risk can mitigate the underutilization of supplemental screening breast MRI.