Facility Variability in Examination Indication Among Women With Prior Breast Cancer: Implications and the Need for Standardization

Long-term Mammography Screening Trends and Predictors of Return to Screening after the COVID-19 Pandemic: Results from a Statewide Registry

Purpose To evaluate long-term trends in mammography screening rates and identify sociodemographic and breast cancer risk characteristics associated with return to screening after the COVID-19 pandemic. Materials and Methods In this retrospective study, statewide screening mammography data of 222 384 female individuals aged 40 years or older (mean age, 58.8 years ± 11.7 [SD]) from the Vermont Breast Cancer Surveillance System were evaluated to generate descriptive statistics and Joinpoint models to characterize screening patterns during 2000-2022. Log-binomial regression models estimated associations of sociodemographic and risk characteristics with post-COVID-19 pandemic return to screening. Results The proportion of female individuals in Vermont aged 50-74 years with a screening mammogram obtained in the previous 2 years declined from a prepandemic level of 61.3% (95% CI: 61.1%, 61.6%) in 2019 to 56.0% (95% CI: 55.7%, 56.3%) in 2021 before rebounding to 60.7% (95% CI: 60.4%, 61.0%) in 2022. Screening adherence in 2022 remained substantially lower than that observed during the 2007-2010 apex of screening adherence (66.1%-67.0%). Joinpoint models estimated an annual percent change of -1.1% (95% CI: -1.5%, -0.8%) during 2010-2022. Among the cohort of 95 644 individuals screened during January 2018-March 2020, the probability of returning to screening during 2020-2022 varied by age (eg, risk ratio [RR] = 0.94 [95% CI: 0.93, 0.95] for age 40-44 vs age 60-64 years), race and ethnicity (RR = 0.84 [95% CI: 0.78, 0.90] for Black vs White individuals), education (RR = 0.84 [95% CI: 0.81, 0.86] for less than high school degree vs college degree), and by 5-year breast cancer risk (RR = 1.06 [95% CI: 1.04, 1.08] for very high vs average risk). Conclusion Despite a rebound to near prepandemic levels, Vermont mammography screening rates have steadily declined since 2010, with certain sociodemographic groups less likely to return to screening after the pandemic. Keywords: Mammography, Breast, Health Policy and Practice, Neoplasms-Primary, Epidemiology, Screening Supplemental material is available for this article. © RSNA, 2024.

Increased Variation in Esophageal Cancer Treatment and Geographic Healthcare Disparity in Michigan

BACKGROUND

Regional variation in complex healthcare is shown to negatively impact health outcomes. We sought to characterize geographic variance in esophageal cancer operation in Michigan.

STUDY DESIGN

Data for patients with locoregional esophageal cancer from the Michigan Cancer Surveillance Program from 2000 to 2013 was analyzed. We reviewed the incidence of esophageal cancer by county and region, and those with locoregional disease receiving an esophagectomy. Counties were aggregated into existing state-level "urban vs rural" designations, regions were aggregated using the Michigan Economic Recovery Council designations, and data was analyzed with ANOVA, F-test, and chi-square test.

RESULTS

Of the 8,664 patients with locoregional disease, 2,370 (27.4%) were treated with operation. Men were significantly more likely to receive esophagectomy than women (p < 0.001). Likewise, White, insured, and rural patients were more likely than non-White (p < 0.001), non-insured (p = 0.004), and urban patients (p < 0.001), respectively. There were 8 regions and 83 counties, with 61 considered rural and 22 urban. Region 1 (Detroit metro area, southeast) comprises the largest urban and suburban populations; with 4 major hospital systems it was considered the baseline standard for access to care. Regions 2 (west; p = 0.011), 3 (southwest; p = 0.024), 4 (east central; p = 0.012), 6 (northern Lower Peninsula; p = 0.008), and 8 (Upper Peninsula; p < 0.001) all had statistically significant greater variance in annual rates of operation compared with region 1. Region 8 had the largest variance and was the most rural and furthest from region 1. The variance in operation rate between urban and rural differed significantly (p = 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

A significant increase in variation of care was found in rural vs urban counties, as well as in regions distant to larger hospital systems. Those of male sex, White race, rural residence, and those with health insurance were significantly more likely to receive operation.

Impact of Surveillance Mammography Intervals Less Than One Year on Performance Measures in Women With a Personal History of Breast Cancer

OBJECTIVE

When multiple surveillance mammograms are performed within an annual interval, the current guidance for one-year follow-up to determine breast cancer status results in shared follow-up periods in which a single breast cancer diagnosis can be attributed to multiple preceding examinations, posing a challenge for standardized performance assessment. We assessed the impact of using follow-up periods that eliminate the artifactual inflation of second breast cancer diagnoses.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We evaluated surveillance mammograms from 2007-2016 in women with treated breast cancer linked with tumor registry and pathology outcomes. Second breast cancers included ductal carcinoma in situ or invasive breast cancer diagnosed during one-year follow-up. The cancer detection rate, interval cancer rate, sensitivity, and specificity were compared using different follow-up periods: standard one-year follow-up per the American College of Radiology versus follow-up that was shortened at the next surveillance mammogram if less than one year (truncated follow-up). Performance measures were calculated overall and by indication (screening, evaluation for breast problem, and short interval follow-up).

RESULTS

Of 117971 surveillance mammograms, 20% (n = 23533) were followed by another surveillance mammogram within one year. Standard follow-up identified 1597 mammograms that were associated with second breast cancers. With truncated follow-up, the breast cancer status of 179 mammograms (11.2%) was revised, resulting in 1418 mammograms associated with unique second breast cancers. The interval cancer rate decreased with truncated versus standard follow-up (3.6 versus 4.9 per 1000 mammograms, respectively), with a difference (95% confidence interval [CI]) of -1.3 (-1.6, -1.1). The overall sensitivity increased to 70.4% from 63.7%, for the truncated versus standard follow-up, with a difference (95% CI) of 6.6% (5.6%, 7.7%). The specificity remained stable at 98.1%.

CONCLUSION

Truncated follow-up, if less than one year to the next surveillance mammogram, enabled second breast cancers to be associated with a single preceding mammogram and resulted in more accurate estimates of diagnostic performance for national benchmarks.

Variation in second breast cancer risk after primary invasive cancer by time since primary cancer diagnosis and estrogen receptor status

BACKGROUND

In women with previously treated breast cancer, occurrence and timing of second breast cancers have implications for surveillance. The authors examined the timing of second breast cancers by primary cancer estrogen receptor (ER) status in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.

METHODS

Women who were diagnosed with American Joint Commission on Cancer stage I-III breast cancer were identified within six Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium registries from 2000 to 2017. Characteristics collected at primary breast cancer diagnosis included demographics, ER status, and treatment. Second breast cancer events included subsequent ipsilateral or contralateral breast cancers diagnosed >6 months after primary diagnosis. The authors examined cumulative incidence and second breast cancer rates by primary cancer ER status during 1-5 versus 6-10 years after diagnosis.

RESULTS

At 10 years, the cumulative second breast cancer incidence was 11.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 10.7%-13.1%) for women with ER-negative disease and 7.5% (95% CI, 7.0%-8.0%) for those with ER-positive disease. Women with ER-negative cancer had higher second breast cancer rates than those with ER-positive cancer during the first 5 years of follow-up (16.0 per 1000 person-years [PY]; 95% CI, 14.2-17.9 per 1000 PY; vs. 7.8 per 1000 PY; 95% CI, 7.3-8.4 per 1000 PY, respectively). After 5 years, second breast cancer rates were similar for women with ER-negative versus ER-positive breast cancer (12.1 per 1000 PY; 95% CI, 9.9-14.7; vs. 9.3 per 1000 PY; 95% CI, 8.4-10.3 per 1000 PY, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

ER-negative primary breast cancers are associated with a higher risk of second breast cancers than ER-positive cancers during the first 5 years after diagnosis. Further study is needed to examine the potential benefit of more intensive surveillance targeting these women in the early postdiagnosis period.

Imaging Surveillance Options for Individuals With a Personal History of Breast Cancer: AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review

Annual surveillance mammography is recommended for breast cancer survivors on the basis of observational studies and meta-analyses showing reduced breast cancer mortality and improved quality of life. However, breast cancer survivors are at higher risk of subsequent breast cancer and have a fourfold increased risk of interval breast cancers compared with individuals without a personal history of breast cancer. Supplemental surveillance modalities offer increased cancer detection compared with mammography alone, but utilization is variable, and benefits must be balanced with possible harms of false-positive findings. In this review, we describe the current state of mammographic surveillance, summarize evidence for supplemental surveillance in breast cancer survivors, and explore a risk-based approach to selecting surveillance imaging strategies. Further research identifying predictors associated with increased risk of interval second breast cancers and development of validated risk prediction tools may help physicians and patients weigh the benefits and harms of surveillance breast imaging and decide on a personalized approach to surveillance for improved breast cancer outcomes.

Trends in Annual Surveillance Mammography Participation Among Breast Cancer Survivors From 2004 to 2016

BACKGROUND

Annual mammography is recommended for breast cancer survivors; however, population-level temporal trends in surveillance mammography participation have not been described. Our objective was to characterize trends in annual surveillance mammography participation among women with a personal history of breast cancer over a 13-year period.

METHODS

We examined annual surveillance mammography participation from 2004 to 2016 in a nationwide sample of commercially insured women with prior breast cancer. Rates were stratified by age group (40-49 vs 50-64 years), visit with a surgical/oncology specialist or primary care provider within the prior year, and sociodemographic characteristics. Joinpoint models were used to estimate annual percentage changes (APCs) in participation during the study period.

RESULTS

Among 141,672 women, mammography rates declined from 74.1% in 2004 to 67.1% in 2016. Rates were stable from 2004 to 2009 (APC, 0.1%; 95% CI, -0.5% to 0.8%) but declined 1.5% annually from 2009 to 2016 (95% CI, -1.9% to -1.1%). For women aged 40 to 49 years, rates declined 2.8% annually (95% CI, -3.4% to -2.1%) after 2009 versus 1.4% annually in women aged 50 to 64 years (95% CI, -1.9% to -1.0%). Similar trends were observed in women who had seen a surgeon/oncologist (APC, -1.7%; 95% CI, -2.1% to -1.4%) or a primary care provider (APC, -1.6%; 95% CI, -2.1% to -1.2%) in the prior year.

CONCLUSIONS

Surveillance mammography participation among breast cancer survivors declined from 2009 to 2016, most notably among women aged 40 to 49 years. These findings highlight a need for focused efforts to improve adherence to surveillance and prevent delays in detection of breast cancer recurrence and second cancers.

Digital Mammography and Breast Tomosynthesis Performance in Women with a Personal History of Breast Cancer, 2007-2016

Background Since 2007, digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) replaced screen-film mammography. Whether these technologic advances have improved diagnostic performance has, to the knowledge of the authors, not yet been established. Purpose To evaluate the performance and outcomes of surveillance mammography (digital mammography and DBT) performed from 2007 to 2016 in women with a personal history of breast cancer and compare with data from 1996 to 2007 and the performance of digital mammography screening benchmarks. Materials and Methods In this observational cohort study, five Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium registries provided prospectively collected mammography data linked with tumor registry and pathologic outcomes. This study identified asymptomatic women with American Joint Committee on Cancer anatomic stages 0-III primary breast cancer who underwent surveillance mammography from 2007 to 2016. The primary outcome was a second breast cancer diagnosis within 1 year of mammography. Performance measures included the recall rate, cancer detection rate, interval cancer rate, positive predictive value of biopsy recommendation, sensitivity, and specificity. Results Among 32 331 women who underwent 117 971 surveillance mammographic examinations (112 269 digital mammographic examinations and 5702 DBT examinations), the mean age at initial diagnosis was 59 years ± 12 (standard deviation). Of 1418 second breast cancers diagnosed, 998 were surveillance-detected cancers and 420 were interval cancers. The recall rate was 8.8% (10 365 of 117 971; 95% CI: 8.6%, 9.0%), the cancer detection rate was 8.5 per 1000 examinations (998 of 117 971; 95% CI: 8.0, 9.0), the interval cancer rate was 3.6 per 1000 examinations (420 of 117 971; 95% CI: 3.2, 3.9), the positive predictive value of biopsy recommendation was 31.0% (998 of 3220; 95% CI: 29.4%, 32.7%), the sensitivity was 70.4% (998 of 1418; 95% CI: 67.9%, 72.7%), and the specificity was 98.1% (114 331 of 116 553; 95% CI: 98.0%, 98.2%). Compared with previously published studies, interval cancer rate was comparable with rates from 1996 to 2007 in women with a personal history of breast cancer and was higher than the published digital mammography screening benchmarks. Conclusion In transitioning from screen-film to digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis, surveillance mammography performance demonstrated minimal improvement over time and remained inferior to the performance of screening mammography benchmarks. © RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Moy and Gao in this issue.

Assessment of a Risk-Based Approach for Triaging Mammography Examinations During Periods of Reduced Capacity

Importance

Breast cancer screening, surveillance, and diagnostic imaging services were profoundly limited during the initial phase of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

Objective

To develop a risk-based strategy for triaging mammograms during periods of decreased capacity.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This population-based cohort study used data collected prospectively from mammography examinations performed in 2014 to 2019 at 92 radiology facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Participants included individuals undergoing mammography. Data were analyzed from August 10 to November 3, 2020.

Exposures

Clinical indication for screening, breast symptoms, personal history of breast cancer, age, time since last mammogram/screening interval, family history of breast cancer, breast density, and history of high-risk breast lesion.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Combinations of clinical indication, clinical history, and breast cancer risk factors that subdivided mammograms into risk groups according to their cancer detection rate were identified using classification and regression trees.

Results

The cohort included 898 415 individuals contributing 1 878 924 mammograms (mean [SD] age at mammogram, 58.6 [11.2] years) interpreted by 448 radiologists, with 1 722 820 mammograms in individuals without a personal history of breast cancer and 156 104 mammograms in individuals with a history of breast cancer. Most individuals were aged 50 to 69 years at imaging (1 113 174 mammograms [59.2%]), and 204 305 (11.2%) were Black, 206 087 (11.3%) were Asian or Pacific Islander, 126 677 (7.0%) were Hispanic or Latina, and 40 021 (2.2%) were another race/ethnicity or mixed race/ethnicity. Cancer detection rates varied widely based on clinical indication, breast symptoms, personal history of breast cancer, and age. The 12% of mammograms with very high (89.6 [95% CI, 82.3-97.5] to 122.3 [95% CI, 108.1-138.0] cancers detected per 1000 mammograms) or high (36.1 [95% CI, 33.1-39.3] to 47.5 [95% CI, 42.4-53.3] cancers detected per 1000 mammograms) cancer detection rates accounted for 55% of all detected cancers and included mammograms to evaluate an abnormal mammogram or breast lump in individuals of all ages regardless of breast cancer history, to evaluate breast symptoms other than lump in individuals with a breast cancer history or without a history but aged 60 years or older, and for short-interval follow-up in individuals aged 60 years or older without a breast cancer history. The 44.2% of mammograms with very low cancer detection rates accounted for 13.1% of detected cancers and included annual screening mammograms in individuals aged 50 to 69 years (3.8 [95% CI, 3.5-4.1] cancers detected per 1000 mammograms) and all screening mammograms in individuals younger than 50 years regardless of screening interval (2.8 [95% CI, 2.6-3.1] cancers detected per 1000 mammograms).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this population-based cohort study, clinical indication and individual risk factors were associated with cancer detection and may be useful for prioritizing mammography in times and settings of decreased capacity.

Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging Audit: Pitfalls, Challenges, and Future Considerations

Breast magnetic resonance (MR) imaging is the most sensitive imaging modality for breast cancer detection and guidelines recommend its use, in addition to screening mammography, for high-risk women. The most recent American College of Radiology (ACR) Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) manual coordinated cross-modality BI-RADS terminology and established an outcome monitoring section that helps guide a medical imaging outcomes audit. This article provides a framework for performing a breast MR imaging audit in clinical practice, incorporating ACR BI-RADS guidance and more recently published data, clarifies common pitfalls, and discusses audit challenges related to evolving clinical practice.