Accuracy of diagnostic mammography at facilities serving vulnerable women

Breast Cancer Risk and Screening Mammography Frequency Among Multiethnic Women

INTRODUCTION

In 2009, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force updated recommended mammography screening frequency from annual to biennial for average-risk women aged 50-74 years. The association between estimated breast cancer risk and mammography screening frequency was evaluated.

METHODS

A single-center retrospective cohort study was conducted among racially/ethnically diverse women, aged 50-74 years, who underwent screening mammography from 2014 to 2018. Data on age, race/ethnicity, first-degree family history of breast cancer, previous benign breast biopsies, and mammographic density were extracted from the electronic health record to calculate Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium 5-year risk of invasive breast cancer, with a 5-year risk ≥1.67% defined as high risk. Multivariable analyses were conducted to determine the association between breast cancer risk factors and mammography screening frequency (annual versus biennial). Data were analyzed from 2020 to 2022.

RESULTS

Among 12,929 women with a mean age of 61±6.9 years, 82.7% underwent annual screening mammography, and 30.7% met high-risk criteria for breast cancer. Hispanic women were more likely to screen annually than non-Hispanic Whites (85.0% vs 79.8%, respectively), despite fewer meeting high-risk criteria. In multivariable analyses adjusting for breast cancer risk factors, high- versus low/average-risk women (OR=1.17; 95% CI=1.04, 1.32) and Hispanic versus non-Hispanic White women (OR=1.46; 95% CI=1.29, 1.65) were more likely to undergo annual mammography.

CONCLUSIONS

A majority of women continue to undergo annual screening mammography despite only a minority meeting high-risk criteria, and Hispanic women were more likely to screen annually despite lower overall breast cancer risk. Future studies should focus on the implementation of risk-stratified breast cancer screening strategies.

Identifying key barriers to effective breast cancer control in rural settings

Breast cancer is the most common cancer and the second most common cause of cancer mortality among women in the United States. Efforts to promote breast cancer control in rural settings face specific challenges. Access to breast cancer screening, diagnosis, and treatment services is impaired by shortages of primary care and specialist providers, and geographic distance from medical facilities. Women in rural areas have comparable breast cancer mortality rates compared to women in urban settings, but this is due in large part to lower incidence rates and masks a substantial rural/urban disparity in breast cancer survival among women diagnosed with breast cancer. Mammography screening utilization rates are slightly lower among rural women than their urban counterparts, with a corresponding increase in late stage breast cancer. Differences in breast cancer survival persist after controlling for stage at diagnosis, largely due to disparities in access to treatment. Travel distance to treatment centers is the most substantial barrier to improved breast cancer outcomes in rural areas. While numerous interventions have been demonstrated in controlled studies to be effective in promoting treatment access and adherence, widespread dissemination in public health and clinical practice remains lacking. Efforts to improve breast cancer control in rural areas should focus on implementation strategies for improving access to breast cancer treatments.

Factors Associated with False Positive Results on Screening Mammography in a Population of Predominantly Hispanic Women

Background: Potential harms of screening mammography include false positive results, such as recall breast imaging or biopsies.Methods: We recruited women undergoing screening mammography at Columbia University Medical Center in New York, New York. They completed a questionnaire on breast cancer risk factors and permitted access to their medical records. Breast cancer risk status was determined using the Gail model and a family history screener. High risk was defined as a 5-year invasive breast cancer risk of ≥1.67% or eligible for BRCA genetic testing. False positive results were defined as recall breast imaging (BIRADS score of 0, 3, 4, or 5) and/or biopsies that did not yield breast cancer.Results: From November 2014 to October 2015, 2,361 women were enrolled and 2,019 were evaluable, of whom 76% were Hispanic and 10% non-Hispanic white. Fewer Hispanic women met high-risk criteria for breast cancer than non-Hispanic whites (18.0% vs. 68.1%), but Hispanics more frequently engaged in annual screening (71.9% vs. 60.8%). Higher breast density (heterogeneously/extremely dense vs. mostly fat/scattered fibroglandular densities) and more frequent screening (annual vs. biennial) were significantly associated with false positive results [odds ratio (OR), 1.64; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.32-2.04 and OR, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.70-2.80, respectively].Conclusions: We observed that women who screened more frequently or had higher breast density were at greater risk for false positive results. In addition, Hispanic women were screening more frequently despite having a lower risk of breast cancer compared with whites.Impact: Our results highlight the need for risk-stratified screening to potentially minimize the harms of screening mammography. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 27(4); 446-53. ©2018 AACR.

The Challenges of Screening Mammography in Racial/Ethnic Minority Populations in the United States: A mini-review and observations from a predominantly Hispanic community

Screening mammography is recommended by U.S. medical organizations for breast cancer screening in average risk women because of its demonstrated reductions in breast cancer mortality. However, significant disparities in breast cancer screening utilization and mortality remain among racial/ethnic minorities. Efforts have appropriately been directed at increasing engagement with screening services in these populations, however, there is a dearth of data regarding false-positive rates and overdiagnosis in minority patients engaged in breast cancer screening. We recently examined screening practices among a predominantly Hispanic population presenting to an academic medical center in New York, NY, and found that approximately 53% of women experienced at least one false-positive mammography result over a median of 8.9 years of screening. We also observed that Hispanic women were more likely to screen annually than white women despite recommendations to screen less frequently. In this review, we briefly review the benefits and harms of screening mammography in average-risk women, namely, false-positive results and breast cancer overdiagnosis, followed by a discussion of the disparities in breast cancer screening and mortality among racial/ethnic minority populations. We then present our own recent observations and propose that future interventions among Hispanic and other minority populations could include patient- and provider-centered educational programs that focus on providing a balanced discussion of benefits and harms of screening mammography.

Breast cancer statistics, 2015: Convergence of incidence rates between black and white women

In this article, the American Cancer Society provides an overview of female breast cancer statistics in the United States, including data on incidence, mortality, survival, and screening. Approximately 231,840 new cases of invasive breast cancer and 40,290 breast cancer deaths are expected to occur among US women in 2015. Breast cancer incidence rates increased among non-Hispanic black (black) and Asian/Pacific Islander women and were stable among non-Hispanic white (white), Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaska Native women from 2008 to 2012. Although white women have historically had higher incidence rates than black women, in 2012, the rates converged. Notably, during 2008 through 2012, incidence rates were significantly higher in black women compared with white women in 7 states, primarily located in the South. From 1989 to 2012, breast cancer death rates decreased by 36%, which translates to 249,000 breast cancer deaths averted in the United States over this period. This decrease in death rates was evident in all racial/ethnic groups except American Indians/Alaska Natives. However, the mortality disparity between black and white women nationwide has continued to widen; and, by 2012, death rates were 42% higher in black women than in white women. During 2003 through 2012, breast cancer death rates declined for white women in all 50 states; but, for black women, declines occurred in 27 of 30 states that had sufficient data to analyze trends. In 3 states (Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin), breast cancer death rates in black women were stable during 2003 through 2012. Widening racial disparities in breast cancer mortality are likely to continue, at least in the short term, in view of the increasing trends in breast cancer incidence rates in black women.

Racial differences in false-positive mammogram rates: results from the ACRIN Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST)

BACKGROUND

Mammography screening reduces breast cancer mortality, but false-positive tests are common. Few studies have assessed racial differences in false-positive rates.

OBJECTIVES

We compared false-positive mammography rates for black and white women, and the effect of patient and facility characteristics on false positives.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND SUBJECTS

A prospective cohort study. From a sample of the American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN) Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST), we identified black/African American (N=3176) or white (N=26,446) women with no prior breast surgery or breast cancer.

MEASURES

Race, demographics, and breast cancer risk factors were self-reported. Results of initial digital and film mammograms were assessed. False positives were defined as a positive mammogram (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System category 0, 4, 5) with no cancer diagnosis within 15 months.

RESULTS

The false-positive rate for digital mammograms was 9.2% for black women compared with 7.8% for white women (P=0.009). After adjusting for age, black women had 17% increased odds of false-positive digital mammogram compared with whites (OR=1.17; 95% CI, 1.01-1.35; P=0.033). This association was attenuated after adjusting for patient factors, prior films, and study site (OR=1.04; 95% CI, 0.91-1.20; P=0.561). There was no difference in the occurrence of false positives by race for film mammography.

CONCLUSIONS

Black women had higher frequency of false-positive digital mammograms explained by lack of prior films and study site.The variation in the disparity between the established technique (film) and the new technology (digital) raises the possibility that racial differences in screening quality may be greatest for new technologies.

Availability of Advanced Breast Imaging at Screening Facilities Serving Vulnerable Populations

OBJECTIVE

Among vulnerable women, unequal access to advanced breast imaging modalities beyond screening mammography may lead to delays in cancer diagnosis and unfavourable outcomes. We aimed to compare on-site availability of advanced breast imaging services (ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging [MRI], and image-guided biopsy) between imaging facilities serving vulnerable patient populations and those serving non-vulnerable populations.

SETTING

73 imaging facilities across five Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium regional registries in the United States during 2011 and 2012.

METHODS

We examined facility and patient characteristics across a large, national sample of imaging facilities and patients served. We characterized facilities as serving vulnerable populations based on the proportion of mammograms performed on women with lower educational attainment, lower median income, racial/ethnic minority status, and rural residence.We performed multivariable logistic regression to determine relative risks of on-site availability of advanced imaging at facilities serving vulnerable women versus facilities serving non-vulnerable women.

RESULTS

Facilities serving vulnerable populations were as likely (Relative risk [RR] for MRI = 0.71, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 0.42, 1.19; RR for MRI-guided biopsy = 1.07 [0.61, 1.90]; RR for stereotactic biopsy = 1.18 [0.75, 1.85]) or more likely (RR for ultrasound = 1.38 [95% CI 1.09, 1.74]; RR for ultrasound-guided biopsy = 1.67 [1.30, 2.14]) to offer advanced breast imaging services as those serving non-vulnerable populations.

CONCLUSIONS

Advanced breast imaging services are physically available on-site for vulnerable women in the United States, but it is unknown whether factors such as insurance coverage or out-of-pocket costs might limit their use.

Do mammographic technologists affect radiologists' diagnostic mammography interpretative performance?

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine whether the technologist has an effect on the radiologists' interpretative performance of diagnostic mammography.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using data from a community-based mammography registry from 1994 to 2009, we identified 162,755 diagnostic mammograms interpreted by 286 radiologists and performed by 303 mammographic technologists. We calculated sensitivity, false-positive rate, and positive predictive value (PPV) of the recommendation for biopsy from mammography for examinations performed (i.e., images acquired) by each mammographic technologist, separately for conventional (film-screen) and digital modalities. We assessed the variability of these performance measures among mammographic technologists, using mixed effects logistic regression and taking into account the clustering of examinations within women, radiologists, and radiology practices.

RESULTS

Among the 291 technologists performing conventional examinations, mean sensitivity of the examinations performed was 83.0% (95% CI, 80.8-85.2%), mean false-positive rate was 8.5% (95% CI, 8.0-9.0%), and mean PPV of the recommendation for biopsy from mammography was 27.1% (95% CI, 24.8-29.4%). For the 45 technologists performing digital examinations, mean sensitivity of the examinations they performed was 79.6% (95% CI, 73.1-86.2%), mean false-positive rate was 8.8% (95% CI, 7.5-10.0%), and mean PPV of the recommendation for biopsy from mammography was 23.6% (95% CI, 18.8-28.4%). We found significant variation by technologist in the sensitivity, false-positive rate, and PPV of the recommendation for biopsy from mammography for conventional but not digital mammography (p < 0.0001 for all three interpretive performance measures).

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that the technologist has an influence on radiologists' interpretive performance for diagnostic conventional but not digital mammography. Future studies should examine why this difference between modalities exists and determine if similar patterns are observed for screening mammography.

Clinic type and patient characteristics affecting time to resolution after an abnormal cancer-screening exam

BACKGROUND

Research shows that multilevel factors influence healthcare delivery and patient outcomes. The study goal was to examine how clinic type [academic medical center (AMC) or federally qualified health center (FQHC)] and patient characteristics influence time to resolution (TTR) among individuals with an abnormal cancer-screening test enrolled in a patient navigation (PN) intervention.

METHODS

Data were obtained from the Ohio Patient Navigation Research Project, a group-randomized trial of 862 patients from 18 clinics in Columbus, Ohio. TTR of patient after an abnormal breast, cervical, or colorectal screening test and the clinics' patient and provider characteristics were obtained. Descriptive statistics and Cox shared frailty proportional hazards regression models of TTR were used.

RESULTS

The mean patient age was 44.8 years and 71% of patients were white. In models adjusted for study arm, FQHC patients had a 39% lower rate of resolution than AMC patients (P = 0.004). Patient factors of having a college education, private insurance, higher income, and being older were significantly associated with lower TTR. After adjustment for factors that substantially affected the effect of clinic type (patient insurance status, education level, and age), clinic type was not significantly associated with TTR.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that TTR among individuals participating in PN programs are influenced by multiple socioeconomic patient-level factors rather than clinic type. Consequently, PN interventions should be tailored to address socioeconomic status factors that influence TTR.

IMPACT

These results provide clues regarding where to target PN interventions and the importance of recognizing predictors of TTR according to clinic type.

Breast cancer statistics, 2013

In this article, the American Cancer Society provides an overview of female breast cancer statistics in the United States, including data on incidence, mortality, survival, and screening. Approximately 232,340 new cases of invasive breast cancer and 39,620 breast cancer deaths are expected to occur among US women in 2013. One in 8 women in the United States will develop breast cancer in her lifetime. Breast cancer incidence rates increased slightly among African American women; decreased among Hispanic women; and were stable among whites, Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders, and American Indians/Alaska Natives from 2006 to 2010. Historically, white women have had the highest breast cancer incidence rates among women aged 40 years and older; however, incidence rates are converging among white and African American women, particularly among women aged 50 years to 59 years. Incidence rates increased for estrogen receptor-positive breast cancers in the youngest white women, Hispanic women aged 60 years to 69 years, and all but the oldest African American women. In contrast, estrogen receptor-negative breast cancers declined among most age and racial/ethnic groups. These divergent trends may reflect etiologic heterogeneity and the differing effects of some factors, such as obesity and parity, on risk by tumor subtype. Since 1990, breast cancer death rates have dropped by 34% and this decrease was evident in all racial/ethnic groups except American Indians/Alaska Natives. Nevertheless, survival disparities persist by race/ethnicity, with African American women having the poorest breast cancer survival of any racial/ethnic group. Continued progress in the control of breast cancer will require sustained and increased efforts to provide high-quality screening, diagnosis, and treatment to all segments of the population.

Mammographic screening interval in relation to tumor characteristics and false-positive risk by race/ethnicity and age

BACKGROUND

Biennial screening mammography retains most of the benefits of annual breast cancer screening with reduced harms. Whether screening guidelines based on race/ethnicity and age would be more effective than age-based guidelines is unknown.

METHODS

Mammography data from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium were linked to pathology and tumor databases. The authors identified women aged 40 to 74 years who underwent annual, biennial, or triennial screening mammography between 1994 and 2008. Logistic regression was used to estimate adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) of adverse tumor characteristics among 14,396 incident breast cancer cases and 10-year cumulative risks of false-positive recall and biopsy recommendation among 1,276,312 noncases.

RESULTS

No increased risk of adverse tumor characteristics associated with biennial versus annual screening were noted in white women, black women, Hispanic women aged 40 to 49 years, or Asian women aged 50 to 74 years. Hispanic women aged 50 to 74 years who screened biennially versus annually were found to have an increased risk of late-stage disease (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.0-2.5) and large tumors (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1-2.4). Asian women aged 40 to 49 years who underwent biennial screening had an elevated risk of positive lymph nodes (OR, 3.1; 95% CI, 1.3-7.1). No elevated risks were associated with triennial versus biennial screening. Cumulative false-positive risks decreased markedly with a longer screening interval.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors found limited evidence of elevated risks of adverse tumor characteristics with biennial versus annual screening, whereas cumulative false-positive risks were lower. However, elevated risks of late-stage disease in Hispanic women and lymph node-positive disease in younger Asian women who screened less often than annually warrant consideration and replication.

Timeliness of abnormal screening and diagnostic mammography follow-up at facilities serving vulnerable women

BACKGROUND

Whether timeliness of follow-up after abnormal mammography differs at facilities serving vulnerable populations, such as women with limited education or income, in rural areas, and racial/ethnic minorities is unknown.

METHODS

We examined receipt of diagnostic evaluation after abnormal mammography using 1998-2006 Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium-linked Medicare claims. We compared whether time to recommended breast imaging or biopsy depended on whether women attended facilities serving vulnerable populations. We characterized a facility by the proportion of mammograms performed on women with limited education or income, in rural areas, or racial/ethnic minorities.

RESULTS

We analyzed 30,874 abnormal screening examinations recommended for follow-up imaging across 142 facilities and 10,049 abnormal diagnostic examinations recommended for biopsy across 114 facilities. Women at facilities serving populations with less education or more racial/ethnic minorities had lower rates of follow-up imaging (4%-5% difference, P<0.05), and women at facilities serving more rural and low-income populations had lower rates of biopsy (4%-5% difference, P<0.05). Women undergoing biopsy at facilities serving vulnerable populations had longer times until biopsy than those at facilities serving nonvulnerable populations (21.6 vs. 15.6 d; 95% confidence interval for mean difference 4.1-7.7). The proportion of women receiving recommended imaging within 11 months and biopsy within 3 months varied across facilities (interquartile range, 85.5%-96.5% for imaging and 79.4%-87.3% for biopsy).

CONCLUSIONS

Among Medicare recipients, follow-up rates were slightly lower at facilities serving vulnerable populations, and among those women who returned for diagnostic evaluation, time to follow-up was slightly longer at facilities that served vulnerable population. Interventions should target variability in follow-up rates across facilities, and evaluate effectiveness particularly at facilities serving vulnerable populations.

Facility characteristics do not explain higher false-positive rates in diagnostic mammography at facilities serving vulnerable women

BACKGROUND

Facilities serving vulnerable women have higher false-positive rates for diagnostic mammography than facilities serving nonvulnerable women. False positives lead to anxiety, unnecessary biopsies, and higher costs.

OBJECTIVE

Examine whether availability of on-site breast ultrasound or biopsy services, academic medical center affiliation, or profit status explains differences in false-positive rates.

DESIGN

We examined 78,733 diagnostic mammograms performed to evaluate breast problems at Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium facilities from 1999 to 2005. We used logistic-normal mixed effects regression to determine if adjusting for facility characteristics accounts for observed differences in false-positive rates.

MEASURES

Facilities were characterized as serving vulnerable women based on the proportion of mammograms performed on racial/ethnic minorities, women with lower educational attainment, limited household income, or rural residence.

RESULTS

Although the availability of on-site ultrasound and biopsy services was associated with greater odds of a false positive in most models [odds ratios (OR) ranging from 1.24 to 1.88; P<0.05], adjustment for these services did not attenuate the association between vulnerability and false-positive rates. Estimated ORs for the effect of vulnerability indexes on false-positive rates unadjusted for facility services were: lower educational attainment [OR 1.33; 95% confidence intervals (CI), 1.03-1.74]; racial/ethnic minority status (OR 1.33; 95% CI, 0.98-1.80); rural residence (OR 1.56; 95% CI, 1.26-1.92); limited household income (OR 1.38; 95% CI, 1.10-1.73). After adjustment, estimates remained relatively unchanged.

CONCLUSIONS

On-site diagnostic service availability may contribute to unnecessary biopsies, but does not explain the higher diagnostic mammography false-positive rates at facilities serving vulnerable women.

Advancements in the use of blood tests for cancer screening in women at high risk for endometrial and breast cancer

Several years ago, it was argued that the identification of serum biomarkers is one of the most promising approaches for the detection of early-stage malignant or even premalignant lesions. In this review, the need to establish better monitoring protocols is described for obese women who are at higher risk for the development of malignancies commonly associated with excess weight; specifically endometrial and postmenopausal breast cancer. These cancers have been chosen for this review article as our aim was to focus on female cancers that have been linked with obesity. Cancer screening is essential in detecting disease in its earliest stage in order to reduce morbidity and mortality; however, effective screening is not available for many cancer types. Even for cancers that have effective screening protocols available, there are barriers to screening in obese individuals, such as reduced mobility and embarrassment. These barriers often delay screening in these vulnerable population groups, leading to detection of the disease at a more advanced stage and ultimately leading to a poorer prognosis. As of today, biomarkers do not replace but augment imaging and other existing screening approaches. Future development of blood- or urine-based biomarkers as a way to screen individuals at high risk for certain cancers may prove to be an excellent method for overcoming the barriers that individuals at high risk are facing today. The overall purpose of this manuscript is to provide an overview of screening techniques and to identified barriers and alternate biomarker-based approaches for improvement of endometrial and breast cancer screening in obese women.

Mammographic interpretive volume and diagnostic mammogram interpretation performance in community practice

PURPOSE

To investigate the association between radiologist interpretive volume and diagnostic mammography performance in community-based settings.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study received institutional review board approval and was HIPAA compliant. A total of 117,136 diagnostic mammograms that were interpreted by 107 radiologists between 2002 and 2006 in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium were included. Logistic regression analysis was used to estimate the adjusted effect on sensitivity and the rates of false-positive findings and cancer detection of four volume measures: annual diagnostic volume, screening volume, total volume, and diagnostic focus (percentage of total volume that is diagnostic). Analyses were stratified by the indication for imaging: additional imaging after screening mammography or evaluation of a breast concern or problem.

RESULTS

Diagnostic volume was associated with sensitivity; the odds of a true-positive finding rose until a diagnostic volume of 1000 mammograms was reached; thereafter, they either leveled off (P < .001 for additional imaging) or decreased (P = .049 for breast concerns or problems) with further volume increases. Diagnostic focus was associated with false-positive rate; the odds of a false-positive finding increased until a diagnostic focus of 20% was reached and decreased thereafter (P < .024 for additional imaging and P < .001 for breast concerns or problems with no self-reported lump). Neither total volume nor screening volume was consistently associated with diagnostic performance.

CONCLUSION

Interpretive volume and diagnostic performance have complex multifaceted relationships. Our results suggest that diagnostic interpretive volume is a key determinant in the development of thresholds for considering a diagnostic mammogram to be abnormal. Current volume regulations do not distinguish between screening and diagnostic mammography, and doing so would likely be challenging.