Risk-Based Screening Mammography for Women Aged <40: Outcomes From the National Mammography Database

The current status of risk-stratified breast screening

Apart from high-risk scenarios such as the presence of highly penetrant genetic mutations, breast screening typically comprises mammography or tomosynthesis strategies defined by age. However, age-based screening ignores the range of breast cancer risks that individual women may possess and is antithetical to the ambitions of personalised early detection. Whilst screening mammography reduces breast cancer mortality, this is at the risk of potentially significant harms including overdiagnosis with overtreatment, and psychological morbidity associated with false positives. In risk-stratified screening, individualised risk assessment may inform screening intensity/interval, starting age, imaging modality used, or even decisions not to screen. However, clear evidence for its benefits and harms needs to be established. In this scoping review, the authors summarise the established and emerging evidence regarding several critical dependencies for successful risk-stratified breast screening: risk prediction model performance, epidemiological studies, retrospective clinical evaluations, health economic evaluations and qualitative research on feasibility and acceptability. Family history, breast density or reproductive factors are not on their own suitable for precisely estimating risk and risk prediction models increasingly incorporate combinations of demographic, clinical, genetic and imaging-related parameters. Clinical evaluations of risk-stratified screening are currently limited. Epidemiological evidence is sparse, and randomised trials only began in recent years.

What do experts look at and what do experts find when reading mammograms?

Purpose: Radiologists sometimes fail to report clearly visible, clinically significant findings. Eye tracking can provide insight into the causes of such errors. Approach: We tracked eye movements of 17 radiologists, searching for masses in 80 mammograms (60 with masses). Results: Errors were classified using the Kundel et al. (1978) taxonomy: search errors (target never fixated), recognition errors (fixated < 500    ms ), or decision errors (fixated > 500    ms ). Error proportions replicated Krupinski (1996): search 25%, recognition 25%, and decision 50%. Interestingly, we found few differences between experts and residents in accuracy or eye movement metrics. Error categorization depends on the definition of the useful field of view (UFOV) around fixation. We explored different UFOV definitions, based on targeting saccades and search saccades. Targeting saccades averaged slightly longer than search saccades. Of most interest, we found that the probability that the eyes would move to the target on the next saccade or even on one of the next three saccades was strikingly low ( ∼ 33 % , even when the eyes were < 2    deg from the target). This makes it clear that observers do not fully process everything within a UFOV. Using a probabilistic UFOV, we find, unsurprisingly, that observers cover more of the image when no target is present than when it is found. Interestingly, we do not find evidence that observers cover too little of the image on trials when they miss the target. Conclusions: These results indicate that many errors in mammography reflect failed deployment of attention; not failure to fixate clinically significant locations.