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

TPM2 as a potential predictive biomarker for atherosclerosis

Cardiac-cerebral vascular disease (CCVD), is primarily induced by atherosclerosis, and is a leading cause of mortality. Numerous studies have investigated and attempted to clarify the molecular mechanisms of atherosclerosis; however, its pathogenesis has yet to be completely elucidated. Two expression profiling datasets, GSE43292 and GSE57691, were obtained from the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) database. The present study then identified the differentially expressed genes (DEGs), and functional annotation of the DEGs was performed. Finally, an atherosclerosis animal model and neural network prediction model was constructed to verify the relationship between hub gene and atherosclerosis. The results identified a total of 234 DEGs between the normal and atherosclerosis samples. The DEGs were mainly enriched in actin filament, actin binding, smooth muscle cells, and cytokine-cytokine receptor interactions. A total of 13 genes were identified as hub genes. Following verification of animal model, the common DEG, Tropomyosin 2 (TPM2), was found, which were displayed at lower levels in the atherosclerosis models and samples. In summary, DEGs identified in the present study may assist clinicians in understanding the pathogenesis governing the occurrence and development of atherosclerosis, and TPM2 exhibits potential as a promising diagnostic and therapeutic biomarker for atherosclerosis.

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.