Importance of quality in breast cancer screening practice - a natural experiment in Alberta, Canada

[Risk of false-positive result in mammography screening in Brazil]

False-positive results on mammography screening are common, putting a burden on both women and the health care system. This study aimed to estimate the risk of false-positive results in Brazilian mammography screening based on data from the Brazilian Unified National Health System (SUS) information systems. A retrospective cohort study was conducted with women aged 40-69 years, who underwent mammography screening and breast histopathological examination at SUS from 2017 to 2019. The rate of false-positive results was estimated based on the prevalence of altered BI-RADS results on mammography screening and the proportion of benign results on breast histopathological examination. Of the 10,671 women with histopathological examination at SUS, 46.2% had a benign result, and this proportion was significantly higher in women aged 40-49 years compared to women aged 50-69 years. The estimate of false-positive results was 8.18 cases per 100 women aged 40-49 years and 6.06 per 100 women aged 50-69 years. This information is useful for public managers in evaluating mammography screening programs, as well as for health care providers to guide women on the implications of mammography screening.

A Primer to Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Breast Cancer Imaging: A Review of the Literature

Currently, there is a multitude of methods for evaluating the costs and benefits of programs, tools, etc. While cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is commonly used, cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is a more appropriate method of evaluation in clinical contexts, such as radiology practices, as CEAs use units such as life years gained as opposed to money (as is the case for CBAs). This review examines CEAs performed within the past 15 years to highlight their applications and key findings in the context of medical imaging.

In total, 20 articles published between 2006 and 2022 were identified using a PubMed search for keywords including “cost-effectiveness analysis,” “breast cancer,” and “medical imaging,” with studies lacking a substantial discussion of CEA or a related topic being excluded.

CEAs have traditionally been criticized for lack of a standard methodology, despite their utility in the detection and treatment of various pathologies. Although mammography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are the preferred and cost-effective imaging modalities for breast cancer, other imaging modalities, such as contrast-enhanced mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis, may be more cost-effective in the appropriate clinical context. Different combinations of mammography and MRI screenings for certain breast cancers may also prove to be more cost-effective compared to current mammography/MRI screening schedules.

While CEA has shown potential utility in estimating the costs (per unit of health gained) of different imaging tools, CEA risks ignoring important outcomes not included in the analysis and cannot address if the benefits of the imaging tool exceed its costs, as a CBA would, suggesting the need for combining several economic evaluations for a more complete understanding.

Differences in breast cancer diagnosis by patient presentation in Ontario: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

In Ontario, patients with breast cancer typically receive their diagnoses through the Ontario Breast Screening Program (OBSP) after an abnormal screen, through screening initiated by a primary care provider or other referring physician, or through follow-up of symptoms by patients' primary care providers. We sought to explore the association of the route to diagnosis (screening within or outside the OBSP or via symptomatic presentation) with use of OBSP-affiliated breast assessment sites (O-BAS), wait times until diagnosis or treatment, health care use and overall survival for patients with breast cancer.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, we used the Ontario Cancer Registry to identify adults (aged 18-105 yr) who received a diagnosis of breast cancer from 2013 to 2017. We excluded patients if they were not Ontario residents or had missing age or sex, or who died before diagnosis. We used logistic regression to evaluate factors associated with categorical variables (whether patients were or were not referred to an OBAS, whether patients were screened or symptomatic) and Cox proportional hazards regression to identify factors associated with all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

Of 51 460 patients with breast cancer, 42 598 (83%) received their diagnoses at an O-BAS. Patients whose cancer was first detected through the OBSP were more likely than symptomatic patients to be given a diagnosis at an O-BAS (adjusted odds ratio 1.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.57 to 1.80). Patients screened by the OBSP were given their diagnoses 1 month earlier than symptomatic patients, but diagnosis at an O-BAS did not affect the time until either diagnosis or treatment. Patients referred to an O-BAS had significantly better overall survival than those who were not referred (adjusted hazard ratio 0.73, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.80).

INTERPRETATION

Patients screened through the OBSP were given their diagnoses earlier than symptomatic patients and were more likely to be referred to an O-BAS, which was associated with better survival. Our findings suggest that individuals with signs and symptoms of breast cancer would benefit from similar referral processes, oversight and standards to those used by the OBSP.

Online or Offline: Does It Matter? A Review of Existing Interpretation Approaches and Their Effect on Screening Mammography Metrics, Patient Satisfaction, and Cost

The ideal practice routine for screening mammography would optimize performance metrics and minimize costs, while also maximizing patient satisfaction. The main approaches to screening mammography interpretation include batch offline, non-batch offline, interrupted online, and uninterrupted online reading, each of which has its own advantages and drawbacks. This article reviews the current literature on approaches to screening mammography interpretation, potential effects of newer technologies, and promising artificial intelligence resources that could improve workflow efficiency in the future.

Relationship of attitudes toward uncertainty and preventive health behaviors with breast cancer screening participation

Backgroundcxs

Early detection of breast cancer is effective for prolonging survival, but the participation rate in breast cancer screening among target Japanese women remains low. This study examined the relationships between tendencies in decision-making under conditions of uncertainty, health behaviors, demographics, and breast cancer screening participation in Japanese women.

Methods

Secondary analysis was performed using data from the 2017 Keio Household Panel Survey (KHPS). The study population consisted of 2945 households. Data were obtained from the KHPS for women aged 40 years or older. Breast cancer screening participation in the past year, risk aversion, time preference, health behaviors (e.g., smoking, alcohol consumption, and medical treatment received in the past year), and demographic variables were analyzed.

Results

Data from 708 women were analyzed. Among the respondents, 28.8% had attended breast cancer screening in the past year. Factors found to significantly contribute to breast cancer screening participation included higher risk aversion (odds ratio [OR], 2.34; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.03–5.32; p = 0.043), medical treatment received in the past year (OR, 1.56; 95% CI = 1.06–2.30; p = 0.026), higher self-rated health (OR, 1.47; 95% CI = 1.18–1.83; p = 0.001), living above the poverty line (OR, 2.31; 95% CI = 1.13–4.72; p = 0.022), and having children (OR, 1.57; 95% CI = 1.02–2.42; p = 0.042). Factors significantly associated with non-participation in breast cancer screening were smoking (OR, 0.20; 95% CI = 0.10–0.42; p < 0.000), alcohol consumption (OR, 0.56; 95% CI = 0.37–0.86; p = 0.007), being self-employed (OR, 0.22; 95% CI = 0.10–0.46; p < 0.000), and being unemployed (OR, 0.48; 95% CI = 0.26–0.90; p = 0.022). No significant relationship was observed between time preference and screening participation.

Conclusions

The results indicate that women who recognize the actual risk of developing breast cancer or have high awareness of breast cancer prevention tend to participate in breast cancer screening. Barriers to screening participation are not working for an organization that encourages screening and low income.

Batch Reading and Interrupted Interpretation of Digital Screening Mammograms Without and With Tomosynthesis

OBJECTIVE

To compare batch reading and interrupted interpretation for modern screening mammography.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed digital mammograms without and with tomosynthesis that were originally interpreted with batch reading or interrupted interpretation between January 2015 and June 2017. The following performance metrics were compared: recall rate (per 100 examinations), cancer detection rate (per 1,000 examinations), and positive predictive values for recall and biopsy.

RESULTS

In all, 9,832 digital mammograms were batch read, yielding a recall rate of 9.98%, cancer detection rate of 4.27, and positive predictive values for recall and biopsy of 4.40% and 35.5%, respectively. There were 49,496 digital mammograms that were read with interrupted interpretation, yielding a recall rate of 11.3%, cancer detection rate of 4.44, and positive predictive values for recall and biopsy of 3.92% and 30.1%, respectively. Of the digital mammograms with tomosynthesis, 7,075 were batch read, yielding a recall rate of 6.98%, cancer detection rate of 5.37, and positive predictive values for recall and biopsy of 7.69% and 38.0%, respectively. Of the digital mammograms with tomosynthesis, 24,380 were read with interrupted interpretation, yielding a recall rate of 8.30%, cancer detection rate of 5.41, and positive predictive values for recall and biopsy of 6.52% and 33.3%, respectively. For both digital mammograms without and with tomosynthesis, recall rates improved with batch reading compared with interrupted interpretation (P < .001), but no significant differences were seen for other metrics.

DISCUSSION

Batch reading digital mammograms without and with tomosynthesis improves recall rates while maintaining cancer detection rates and positive predictive values compared with interrupted interpretation.