Screening Guidelines and Supplemental Screening Tools: Assessment of the Adequacy of Patient-Provider Discussions

Patient Communication Innovations in Breast Imaging

Effective patient communication is paramount in breast radiology, where standardized reporting and patient-centered care practices have long been established. This communication profoundly affects patient experience, well-being, and adherence to medical advice. Breast radiologists play a pivotal role in conveying diagnostic findings and addressing patient concerns, particularly in the context of cancer diagnoses. Technological advances in radiology reporting, patient access to electronic medical records, and the demand for immediate information access have reshaped radiologists' communication practices. Innovative approaches, including image-rich reports, visual timelines, and video radiology reports, have been used in various institutions to enhance patient comprehension and engagement.

Effect of an educational intervention on women's healthcare provider knowledge gaps about breast density, breast cancer risk, and screening

OBJECTIVES

We sought to assess the effect of an educational intervention, based on DenseBreast-info.org website content, on women's healthcare provider knowledge of breast density, its risk and screening implications, and comfort level discussing these topics with patients.

METHODS

US-based women's healthcare providers participated in a web-based pretest/posttest study from May 14, 2019 to September 30, 2019. Pretest included demographics; comfort/knowledge discussing breast density impact on risk and screening; and educational material. Posttest contained the same knowledge and comfort questions. We assessed mean pretest/posttest score and comfort level differences (paired t tests) and pretest/posttest knowledge gap differences (McNemar test). We evaluated associations of baseline characteristics with pretest score and score improvement using multiple linear regression, and associations with knowledge gaps using logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of 177 providers analyzed, 74.0% (131/177) were physicians and 71.8% (127/177) practiced obstetrics/gynecology. Average test score increased from 40.9% (5.7/14) responses correct pretest to 72.1% (10.1/14) posttest (P < 0.001). Pretest, 56.5% (100/177) knew women with extremely dense breasts have four-to-six-fold greater breast cancer risk than those with fatty breasts; 29.4% (52/177) knew risk increases with increasing glandular tissue; only 5.6% (10/177) knew 3D/tomosynthesis does not improve cancer detection in extremely dense breasts over 2D mammography; and 70.6% (125/177) would consider supplemental ultrasound after mammography in an average-risk 50-year old with dense breasts. Postintervention, these knowledge gaps resolved or reduced (all P < 0.005) and comfort in discussing breast density implications increased (all P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Important knowledge gaps about implications of breast density exist among women's healthcare providers, which can be effectively addressed with web-based education.

Understanding the response of mammography facilities to breast density notification

BACKGROUND

State-specific breast density notification legislation requires that women undergoing mammography be informed about breast density, with variation among states. Because mammography facilities are among the main points of contact for women undergoing mammography, research is needed to understand how facilities communicate information on breast density, cancer risk, and supplemental screening to women.

METHODS

A cross-sectional, 50-item, mailed survey of 156 American College of Radiology-certified mammography facilities in North Carolina was conducted in 2017 via the Tailored Design Method. Breast density notification practices, supplemental screening services, and patient educational materials were compared by supplemental screening availability via t tests and chi-square tests.

RESULTS

All responding facilities (n = 94; 60.3% response rate) notified women of their breast density in the mammography results letter. Breast cancer risk assessments were performed by 36.2% of the facilities, with risk information communicated in the final radiology report for the referring provider to discuss with the woman (79.4%) or in the results letter (58.8%). Supplemental breast cancer screening was offered by 63.8% of the facilities, with use based on multiple factors, including recommendations from the referring physician (63.3%) or reading radiologist (63.3%), breast density (48.3%), other risk factors (48.3%), and patient request (40.0%). Although 75.0% of the facilities offered breast density educational materials, only 36.6% offered educational materials on supplemental screening.

CONCLUSIONS

In a state with a breast density notification law, mammography facilities communicate breast density, cancer risk, and supplemental screening information to women through various approaches. When supplemental screening is offered, facilities use multiple decision-making criteria rather than breast density alone.

Radiologic Technologist and Radiologist Knowledge Gaps about Breast Density Revealed by an Online Continuing Education Course

OBJECTIVE

We sought to identify provider knowledge gaps and their predictors, as revealed by a breast density continuing education course marketed to the radiology community.

METHODS

The course, continually available online during the study period of November 2, 2016 and December 31, 2018, includes demographics collection; a monograph on breast density, breast cancer risk, and screening; and a post-test. Four post-test questions were modified during the study period, resulting in different sample sizes pre- and postmodification. Multiple logistic regression was used to identify predictors of knowledge gaps (defined as > 25% of responses incorrect).

RESULTS

Of 1649 analyzable registrants, 1363 (82.7%) were radiologic technologists, 226 (13.7%) were physicians, and 60 (3.6%) were other nonphysicians; over 90% of physicians and over 90% of technologists/nonphysicians specialized in radiology. Sixteen of 49 physicians (32.7%) and 80/233 (34.3%) technologists/nonphysicians mistakenly thought the Gail model should be used to determine "high-risk" status for recommending MRI or genetic testing. Ninety-nine of 226 (43.8%) physicians and 682/1423 (47.9%) technologists/nonphysicians misunderstood the inverse relationship between increasing age and lifetime breast cancer risk. Fifty-two of 166 (31.3%) physicians and 549/1151 (47.7%) technologists/nonphysicians were unaware that MRI should be recommended for women with a family history of BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations. Tomosynthesis effectiveness was overestimated, with 18/60 (30.0%) physicians and 95/272 (34.9%) technologists/nonphysicians believing sensitivity nearly equaled MRI. Knowledge gaps were more common in technologists/nonphysicians.

CONCLUSIONS

Important knowledge gaps about breast density, breast cancer risk assessment, and screening exist among radiologic technologists and radiologists. Continued education efforts may improve appropriate breast cancer screening recommendations.

Screening Breast Ultrasound Using Handheld or Automated Technique in Women with Dense Breasts

In women with dense breasts (heterogeneously or extremely dense), adding screening ultrasound to mammography increases detection of node-negative invasive breast cancer. Similar incremental cancer detection rates averaging 2.1-2.7 per 1000 have been observed for physician- and technologist-performed handheld ultrasound (HHUS) and automated ultrasound (AUS). Adding screening ultrasound (US) for women with dense breasts significantly reduces interval cancer rates. Training is critical before interpreting examinations for both modalities, and a learning curve to achieve optimal performance has been observed. On average, about 3% of women will be recommended for biopsy on the prevalence round because of screening US, with a wide range of 2%-30% malignancy rates for suspicious findings seen only on US. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System 3 lesions identified only on screening HHUS can be safely followed at 1 year rather than 6 months. Computer-aided detection and diagnosis software can augment performance of AUS and HHUS; ongoing research on machine learning and deep learning algorithms will likely improve outcomes and workflow with screening US.