Breast Density Legislation Impact on Breast Cancer Screening and Risk Assessment

International Interobserver Variability of Breast Density Assessment

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to determine variability in visually assessed mammographic breast density categorization among radiologists practicing in Indonesia, the Netherlands, South Africa, and the United States.

METHODS

Two hundred consecutive 2-D full-field digital screening mammograms obtained from September to December 2017 were selected and retrospectively reviewed from four global locations, for a total of 800 mammograms. Three breast radiologists in each location (team) provided consensus density assessments of all 800 mammograms using BI-RADS® density categorization. Interreader agreement was compared using Gwet's AC2 with quadratic weighting across all four density categories and Gwet's AC1 for binary comparison of combined not dense versus dense categories. Variability of distribution among teams was calculated using the Stuart-Maxwell test of marginal homogeneity across all four categories and using the McNemar test for not dense versus dense categories. To compare readers from a particular country on their own 200 mammograms versus the other three teams, density distribution was calculated using conditional logistic regression.

RESULTS

For all 800 mammograms, interreader weighted agreement for distribution among four density categories was 0.86 (Gwet's AC2 with quadratic weighting; 95% confidence interval, 0.85-0.88), and for not dense versus dense categories, it was 0.66 (Gwet's AC1; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.70). Density distribution across four density categories was significantly different when teams were compared with one another and one team versus the other three teams combined (P < .001). Overall, all readers placed the largest number of mammograms in the scattered and heterogeneous categories.

CONCLUSIONS

Although reader teams from four different global locations had almost perfect interreader agreement in BI-RADS density categorization, variability in density distribution across four categories remained statistically significant.

Effect of an Educational Intervention on Women's Health Care Provider Knowledge Gaps About Breast Cancer Risk Model Use and High-risk Screening Recommendations

OBJECTIVE

To assess effectiveness of a web-based educational intervention on women's health care provider knowledge of breast cancer risk models and high-risk screening recommendations.

METHODS

A web-based pre- and post-test study including 177 U.S.-based women's health care providers was conducted in 2019. Knowledge gaps were defined as fewer than 75% of respondents answering correctly. Pre- and post-test knowledge differences (McNemar test) and associations of baseline characteristics with pre-test knowledge gaps (logistic regression) were evaluated.

RESULTS

Respondents included 131/177 (74.0%) physicians; 127/177 (71.8%) practiced obstetrics/gynecology. Pre-test, 118/177 (66.7%) knew the Gail model predicts lifetime invasive breast cancer risk; this knowledge gap persisted post-test [(121/177, 68.4%); P = 0.77]. Just 39.0% (69/177) knew the Gail model identifies women eligible for risk-reducing medications; this knowledge gap resolved. Only 48.6% (86/177) knew the Gail model should not be used to identify women meeting high-risk MRI screening guidelines; this deficiency decreased to 66.1% (117/177) post-test (P = 0.001). Pre-test, 47.5% (84/177) knew the Tyrer-Cuzick model is used to identify women meeting high-risk screening MRI criteria, 42.9% (76/177) to predict BRCA1/2 pathogenic mutation risk, and 26.0% (46/177) to predict lifetime invasive breast cancer risk. These knowledge gaps persisted but improved. For a high-risk 30-year-old, 67.8% (120/177) and 54.2% (96/177) pre-test knew screening MRI and mammography/tomosynthesis are recommended, respectively; 19.2% (34/177) knew both are recommended; and 53% (94/177) knew US is not recommended. These knowledge gaps resolved or reduced.

CONCLUSION

Web-based education can reduce important provider knowledge gaps about breast cancer risk models and high-risk screening recommendations.