Effect of previous benign breast biopsy on the interpretive performance of subsequent screening mammography

Bridging Gaps: Analyzing Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) 0 Rates and Associated Risk Factors in Disproportionally Affected Communities

Introduction Disparities in access to breast cancer screening led to the creation of the Linda Fenner 3D Mobile Mammography Center (LFMMC), successfully increasing screening for uninsured women in Miami-Dade. However, a higher-than-expected rate of inconclusive mammograms (Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) 0) was found, which could lead to unnecessary procedures, stress, costs, and radiation. Methods In this retrospective cross-sectional study, we analyzed data from 3,044 uninsured women aged over 40 (younger if positive family history of breast cancer) from Miami-Dade without breast symptoms or breast cancer history. Women's demographic characteristics, primary language spoken, body mass index (BMI), use of hormone replacement therapy and birth control, history of benign biopsy, breast surgery, family breast cancer, and menopausal status were assessed as potential risk factors for an inconclusive (BI-RADS 0) screening mammogram result. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to evaluate associations. Results The average age of women was 51 years (SD = 9); 59% were White, and 30% were African American. The overall frequency of BI-RADS 0 was 35%. Higher odds of BI-RADS 0 were found for women who were younger, single, premenopausal, and with benign biopsy history. Conversely, obesity and breast implant history decreased the odds of BI-RADS 0. Conclusion We found a high frequency of BI-RADS 0 in the LFMMC sample. Potential reasons include a higher risk for breast cancer or a younger sample of women screened. Future research should explore radiologists' reasoning for assigning BI-RADS 0 results and testing alternative screening strategies for younger women.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Imaging After Breast Surgery

Given that 20% to 40% of women who have percutaneous breast biopsy subsequently undergo breast surgery, knowledge of imaging women with a history of benign (including high-risk) disease or breast cancer is important. For women who had surgery for nonmalignant pathology, the surveillance recommendations are determined by their overall risk. Higher-than-average risk women with a history of benign surgery may require screening mammography starting at an earlier age before 40 and may benefit from screening MRI. For women with breast cancer who have undergone initial excision and have positive margins, imaging with diagnostic mammography or MRI can sometimes guide additional surgical planning. Women who have completed breast conservation therapy for cancer should get annual mammography and may benefit from the addition of MRI or ultrasound to their surveillance regimen. The ACR Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision process support the systematic analysis of the medical literature from peer reviewed journals. Established methodology principles such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE are adapted to evaluate the evidence. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User Manual provides the methodology to determine the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances in which peer reviewed literature is lacking or equivocal, experts may be the primary evidentiary source available to formulate a recommendation.

Dissemination of health technologies: Trends in the use of diagnostic test in breast cancer screening

OBJECTIVE

To analyse trends in the use of diagnostic test in breast cancer screening programs in Spain.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective study of 542,695 women who had undergone at least one screening mammogram in any of the screening centres of three administrative regions in Spain, between 1996 and 2011. Process measures were: overall recall rate, overall invasive test rate, and rates of each type of invasive test (fine-needle aspiration biopsy, core-needle biopsy and surgical biopsy). As results measures were included detection of benign lesions rate, ductal in situ cancer rate and invasive cancer rate. Adjusted by age rates were estimated year by year for each measure and, also, the annual percent of change and its corresponding joint points.

RESULTS

Core-needle biopsy rates decreased between 1996 and 1999 and changed trends in 1999-2011 with an increase of 4.9% per year. Overall recall rate declined by 4.6% from 1999 to 2004, invasive test rate declined between 1996 and 2004 by 24.3%. Fine-needle aspiration biopsy rate changes were: a 22.4% declined per year (1996-1998), and 13.5% declined per year (1998-2005). Benign lesions rate decreased from 1996 to 2011, 21.4% per year (1996-2001) and 6.0% (2001-2011). Ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive cancer had no-statistically significant changes.

CONCLUSION

The introduction of core-needle biopsy was slow and not concurrent with the reduction in the use of other diagnostic tests, but also represented a reduction in the rate of overall diagnostic tests and in the detection rate of benigns lesions without affecting the cancer detection rates.

Patient and Radiologist Characteristics Associated With Accuracy of Two Types of Diagnostic Mammograms

OBJECTIVE

Earlier studies of diagnostic mammography found wide unexplained variability in accuracy among radiologists. We assessed patient and radiologist characteristics associated with the interpretive performance of two types of diagnostic mammography.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Radiologists interpreting mammograms in seven regions of the United States were invited to participate in a survey that collected information on their demographics, practice setting, breast imaging experience, and self-reported interpretive volume. Survey data from 244 radiologists were linked to data on 274,401 diagnostic mammograms performed for additional evaluation of a recent abnormal screening mammogram or to evaluate a breast problem, between 1998 and 2008. These data were also linked to patients' risk factors and follow-up data on breast cancer. We measured interpretive performance by false-positive rate, sensitivity, and AUC. Using logistic regression, we evaluated patient and radiologist characteristics associated with false-positive rate and sensitivity for each diagnostic mammogram type.

RESULTS

Mammograms performed for additional evaluation of a recent mammogram had an overall false-positive rate of 11.9%, sensitivity of 90.2%, and AUC of 0.894; examinations done to evaluate a breast problem had an overall false-positive rate of 7.6%, sensitivity of 83.9%, and AUC of 0.871. Multiple patient characteristics were associated with measures of interpretive performance, and radiologist academic affiliation was associated with higher sensitivity for both indications for diagnostic mammograms.

CONCLUSION

These results indicate the potential for improved radiologist training, using evaluation of their own performance relative to best practices, and for improved clinical outcomes with health care system changes to maximize access to diagnostic mammography interpretation in academic settings.

The potential use of ultra-low radiation dose images in digital mammography--a clinical proof-of-concept study in craniocaudal views

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the potential of low-dose images in digital mammography by analysing the effect of substantial dose reduction in craniocaudal (CC) views on clinical performance.

METHODS

At routine mammography, additional CC views were obtained with about 10% of the standard dose. Five radiologists retrospectively read the standard [mediolateral oblique (MLO) + CC] and combination low-dose mammograms (standard MLO + low-dose CC). If present, lesion type, conspicuity and suggested work-up were recorded. Final diagnoses were made by histology or follow up. A t-test or χ(2) test was used to compare results.

RESULTS

421 cases were included, presenting 5 malignancies, 66 benign lesions and multiple non-specific radiologic features. Using MLO with low-dose CC, all lesions were detected by at least one reader, but altogether less often than with standard mammography (sensitivity, 73.9% vs 81.5%). Missed lesions concerned all types. Lesions detected with both protocols were described similarly (p = 0.084) with comparable work-up recommendations (p = 0.658).

CONCLUSION

Mammography with ultra-low-dose CC images particularly influences detection. While sensitivity decreased, specificity was unaffected. In this proof-of-concept study a lower limit was to be determined that is not intended nor applicable for clinical practice. This should facilitate further research in optimization of a low-dose approach, which has potential in a relatively young and largely asymptomatic population.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

Tungsten/silver-acquired mammography images might facilitate substantial dose reduction. Ultra-low-dose CC images reduce sensitivity, but not specificity. Low-dose images have potential in a largely young and asymptomatic population; a baseline is set for further research in optimization of a low-dose approach.

Accuracy of screening mammography in women with a history of lobular carcinoma in situ or atypical hyperplasia of the breast

Women with lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS), atypical lobular hyperplasia (ALH), atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH), or atypical hyperplasia (AH) are at increased breast cancer (BC) risk. We investigated the accuracy and outcomes of mammography screening in women with histology-proven LCIS, ALH, ADH, or AH history who had screening through Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium-affiliated mammography facilities. Screens from two cohorts, defined by LCIS/ALH or ADH/AH history, were compared to two cohorts without such history mammogram-matched for age-group, breast density, family history, screen-year, and mammography registry. Overall 359 BCs (277 invasive BC) occurred within 1 year from screening among 52,380 screens. In the LCIS/ALH cohort [versus comparator screens] cancer incidence rates, cancer detection rates (CDR), and interval cancer rates (ICR) were significantly higher (all P < 0.001); although ICR was 4.4/1,000 screens [versus 0.9/1,000; P < 0.001] the proportion that were interval cancers did not differ between compared cohorts (P = 0.43); screening sensitivity was 76.1 % [versus 82.3 %; P = 0.43], however, specificity was significantly lower at 85.1 % [versus 90.7 %; P < 0.0001]. In the ADH/AH cohort [versus comparator] cancer rates and CDR were significantly higher (P < 0.001); although ICR was 2.6/1,000 screens [versus 0.9/1,000; P = 0.002] the proportion that were interval cancers did not differ between cohorts (P = 0.74); screening sensitivity was 81.0 % [versus 82.6 %; P = 0.74] and specificity was lower at 86.2 % [versus 90.2 %; P < 0.0001]. Mammography screening sensitivity in LCIS/ALH and ADH/AH cohorts did not significantly differ from that of matched screens, however, specificity was lower, and ICRs were higher (reflecting underlying cancer rates). Adjunct screening may be of value in these women if it reduces ICR without substantially reducing specificity.

Trends in breast biopsies for abnormalities detected at screening mammography: a population-based study in the Netherlands

Background:

Diagnostic surgical breast biopsies have several disadvantages, therefore, they should be used with hesitation. We determined time trends in types of breast biopsies for the workup of abnormalities detected at screening mammography. We also examined diagnostic delays.

Methods:

In a Dutch breast cancer screening region 6230 women were referred for an abnormal screening mammogram between 1 January 1997 and 1 January 2011. During two year follow-up clinical data, breast imaging-, biopsy-, surgery- and pathology-reports were collected of these women. Furthermore, breast cancers diagnosed >3 months after referral (delays) were examined, this included review of mammograms and pathology specimens to determine the cause of the delays.

Results:

In 41.1% (1997–1998) and in 44.8% (2009–2010) of referred women imaging was sufficient for making the diagnosis (P<0.0001). Fine-needle aspiration cytology decreased from 12.7% (1997–1998) to 4.7% (2009–2010) (P<0.0001), percutaneous core-needle biopsies (CBs) increased from 8.0 to 49.1% (P<0.0001) and surgical biopsies decreased from 37.8 to 1.4% (P<0.0001). Delays in breast cancer diagnosis decreased from 6.7 to 1.8% (P=0.003).

Conclusion:

The use of diagnostic surgical breast biopsies has decreased substantially. They have mostly been replaced by percutaneous CBs and this replacement did not result in an increase of diagnostic delays.

Cumulative probability of false-positive recall or biopsy recommendation after 10 years of screening mammography: a cohort study

BACKGROUND

False-positive mammography results are common. Biennial screening may decrease the cumulative probability of false-positive results across many years of repeated screening but could also delay cancer diagnosis.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the cumulative probability of false-positive results and the stage distribution of incident breast cancer after 10 years of annual or biennial screening mammography.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

7 mammography registries in the National Cancer Institute-funded Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.

PARTICIPANTS

169,456 women who underwent first screening mammography at age 40 to 59 years between 1994 and 2006 and 4492 women with incident invasive breast cancer diagnosed between 1996 and 2006.

MEASUREMENTS

False-positive recalls and biopsy recommendations stage distribution of incident breast cancer.

RESULTS

False-positive recall probability was 16.3% at first and 9.6% at subsequent mammography. Probability of false-positive biopsy recommendation was 2.5% at first and 1.0% at subsequent examinations. Availability of comparison mammograms halved the odds of a false-positive recall (adjusted odds ratio, 0.50 [95% CI, 0.45 to 0.56]). When screening began at age 40 years, the cumulative probability of a woman receiving at least 1 false-positive recall after 10 years was 61.3% (CI, 59.4% to 63.1%) with annual and 41.6% (CI, 40.6% to 42.5%) with biennial screening. Cumulative probability of false-positive biopsy recommendation was 7.0% (CI, 6.1% to 7.8%) with annual and 4.8% (CI, 4.4% to 5.2%) with biennial screening. Estimates were similar when screening began at age 50 years. A non-statistically significant increase in the proportion of late-stage cancers was observed with biennial compared with annual screening (absolute increases, 3.3 percentage points [CI, -1.1 to 7.8 percentage points] for women age 40 to 49 years and 2.3 percentage points [CI, -1.0 to 5.7 percentage points] for women age 50 to 59 years) among women with incident breast cancer.

LIMITATIONS

Few women underwent screening over the entire 10-year period. Radiologist characteristics influence recall rates and were unavailable. Most mammograms were film rather than digital. Incident cancer was analyzed in a small sample of women who developed cancer.

CONCLUSION

After 10 years of annual screening, more than half of women will receive at least 1 false-positive recall, and 7% to 9% will receive a false-positive biopsy recommendation. Biennial screening appears to reduce the cumulative probability of false-positive results after 10 years but may be associated with a small absolute increase in the probability of late-stage cancer diagnosis.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Cancer Institute.

Cumulative probability of false-positive recall or biopsy recommendation after 10 years of screening mammography: a cohort study

BACKGROUND

False-positive mammography results are common. Biennial screening may decrease the cumulative probability of false-positive results across many years of repeated screening but could also delay cancer diagnosis.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the cumulative probability of false-positive results and the stage distribution of incident breast cancer after 10 years of annual or biennial screening mammography.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

7 mammography registries in the National Cancer Institute-funded Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.

PARTICIPANTS

169,456 women who underwent first screening mammography at age 40 to 59 years between 1994 and 2006 and 4492 women with incident invasive breast cancer diagnosed between 1996 and 2006.

MEASUREMENTS

False-positive recalls and biopsy recommendations stage distribution of incident breast cancer.

RESULTS

False-positive recall probability was 16.3% at first and 9.6% at subsequent mammography. Probability of false-positive biopsy recommendation was 2.5% at first and 1.0% at subsequent examinations. Availability of comparison mammograms halved the odds of a false-positive recall (adjusted odds ratio, 0.50 [95% CI, 0.45 to 0.56]). When screening began at age 40 years, the cumulative probability of a woman receiving at least 1 false-positive recall after 10 years was 61.3% (CI, 59.4% to 63.1%) with annual and 41.6% (CI, 40.6% to 42.5%) with biennial screening. Cumulative probability of false-positive biopsy recommendation was 7.0% (CI, 6.1% to 7.8%) with annual and 4.8% (CI, 4.4% to 5.2%) with biennial screening. Estimates were similar when screening began at age 50 years. A non-statistically significant increase in the proportion of late-stage cancers was observed with biennial compared with annual screening (absolute increases, 3.3 percentage points [CI, -1.1 to 7.8 percentage points] for women age 40 to 49 years and 2.3 percentage points [CI, -1.0 to 5.7 percentage points] for women age 50 to 59 years) among women with incident breast cancer.

LIMITATIONS

Few women underwent screening over the entire 10-year period. Radiologist characteristics influence recall rates and were unavailable. Most mammograms were film rather than digital. Incident cancer was analyzed in a small sample of women who developed cancer.

CONCLUSION

After 10 years of annual screening, more than half of women will receive at least 1 false-positive recall, and 7% to 9% will receive a false-positive biopsy recommendation. Biennial screening appears to reduce the cumulative probability of false-positive results after 10 years but may be associated with a small absolute increase in the probability of late-stage cancer diagnosis.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Cancer Institute.