Impact of a False-Positive Screening Mammogram on Subsequent Screening Behavior and Stage at Breast Cancer Diagnosis

Re-attendance in supplemental breast MRI screening rounds of the DENSE trial for women with extremely dense breasts

OBJECTIVES

Supplemental MRI screening improves early breast cancer detection and reduces interval cancers in women with extremely dense breasts in a cost-effective way. Recently, the European Society of Breast Imaging recommended offering MRI screening to women with extremely dense breasts, but the debate on whether to implement it in breast cancer screening programs is ongoing. Insight into the participant experience and willingness to re-attend is important for this discussion.

METHODS

We calculated the re-attendance rates of the second and third MRI screening rounds of the DENSE trial. Moreover, we calculated age-adjusted odds ratios (ORs) to study the association between characteristics and re-attendance. Women who discontinued MRI screening were asked to provide one or more reasons for this.

RESULTS

The re-attendance rates were 81.3% (3458/4252) and 85.2% (2693/3160) in the second and third MRI screening round, respectively. A high age (> 65 years), a very low BMI, lower education, not being employed, smoking, and no alcohol consumption were correlated with lower re-attendance rates. Moderate or high levels of pain, discomfort, or anxiety experienced during the previous MRI screening round were correlated with lower re-attendance rates. Finally, a plurality of women mentioned an examination-related inconvenience as a reason to discontinue screening (39.1% and 34.8% in the second and third screening round, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The willingness of women with dense breasts to re-attend an ongoing MRI screening study is high. However, emphasis should be placed on improving the MRI experience to increase the re-attendance rate if widespread supplemental MRI screening is implemented.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

For many women, MRI is an acceptable screening method, as re-attendance rates were high - even for screening in a clinical trial setting. To further enhance the (re-)attendance rate, one possible approach could be improving the overall MRI experience.

KEY POINTS

• The willingness to re-attend in an ongoing MRI screening study is high. • Pain, discomfort, and anxiety in the previous MRI screening round were related to lower re-attendance rates. • Emphasis should be placed on improving MRI experience to increase the re-attendance rate in supplemental MRI screening.

ESR Essentials: screening for breast cancer - general recommendations by EUSOBI

Breast cancer is the most frequently diagnosed cancer in women accounting for about 30% of all new cancer cases and the incidence is constantly increasing. Implementation of mammographic screening has contributed to a reduction in breast cancer mortality of at least 20% over the last 30 years. Screening programs usually include all women irrespective of their risk of developing breast cancer and with age being the only determining factor. This approach has some recognized limitations, including underdiagnosis, false positive cases, and overdiagnosis. Indeed, breast cancer remains a major cause of cancer-related deaths in women undergoing cancer screening. Supplemental imaging modalities, including digital breast tomosynthesis, ultrasound, breast MRI, and, more recently, contrast-enhanced mammography, are available and have already shown potential to further increase the diagnostic performances. Use of breast MRI is recommended in high-risk women and women with extremely dense breasts. Artificial intelligence has also shown promising results to support risk categorization and interval cancer reduction. The implementation of a risk-stratified approach instead of a "one-size-fits-all" approach may help to improve the benefit-to-harm ratio as well as the cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening. KEY POINTS: Regular mammography should still be considered the mainstay of the breast cancer screening. High-risk women and women with extremely dense breast tissue should use MRI for supplemental screening or US if MRI is not available. Women need to participate actively in the decision to undergo personalized screening. KEY RECOMMENDATIONS: Mammography is an effective imaging tool to diagnose breast cancer in an early stage and to reduce breast cancer mortality (evidence level I). Until more evidence is available to move to a personalized approach, regular mammography should be considered the mainstay of the breast cancer screening. High-risk women should start screening earlier; first with yearly breast MRI which can be supplemented by yearly or biennial mammography starting at 35-40 years old (evidence level I). Breast MRI screening should be also offered to women with extremely dense breasts (evidence level I). If MRI is not available, ultrasound can be performed as an alternative, although the added value of supplemental ultrasound regarding cancer detection remains limited. Individual screening recommendations should be made through a shared decision-making process between women and physicians.

Association Between False-Positive Results and Return to Screening Mammography in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium Cohort

BACKGROUND

False-positive results on screening mammography may affect women's willingness to return for future screening.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the association between screening mammography results and the probability of subsequent screening.

DESIGN

Cohort study.

SETTING

177 facilities participating in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC).

PATIENTS

3 529 825 screening mammograms (3 184 482 true negatives and 345 343 false positives) performed from 2005 to 2017 among 1 053 672 women aged 40 to 73 years without a breast cancer diagnosis.

MEASUREMENTS

Mammography results (true-negative result or false-positive recall with a recommendation for immediate additional imaging only, short-interval follow-up, or biopsy) from 1 or 2 screening mammograms. Absolute differences in the probability of returning for screening within 9 to 30 months of false-positive versus true-negative screening results were estimated, adjusting for race, ethnicity, age, time since last mammogram, BCSC registry, and clustering within women and facilities.

RESULTS

Women were more likely to return after a true-negative result (76.9% [95% CI, 75.1% to 78.6%]) than after a false-positive recall for additional imaging only (adjusted absolute difference, -1.9 percentage points [CI, -3.1 to -0.7 percentage points]), short-interval follow-up (-15.9 percentage points [CI, -19.7 to -12.0 percentage points]), or biopsy (-10.0 percentage points [CI, -14.2 to -5.9 percentage points]). Asian and Hispanic/Latinx women had the largest decreases in the probability of returning after a false positive with a recommendation for short-interval follow-up (-20 to -25 percentage points) or biopsy (-13 to -14 percentage points) versus a true negative. Among women with 2 screening mammograms within 5 years, a false-positive result on the second was associated with a decreased probability of returning for a third regardless of the first screening result.

LIMITATION

Women could receive care at non-BCSC facilities.

CONCLUSION

Women were less likely to return to screening after false-positive mammography results, especially with recommendations for short-interval follow-up or biopsy, raising concerns about continued participation in routine screening among these women at increased breast cancer risk.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Cancer Institute.

Screening for Breast Cancer: Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

Importance

Breast cancer is a leading cause of cancer mortality for US women. Trials have established that screening mammography can reduce mortality risk, but optimal screening ages, intervals, and modalities for population screening guidelines remain unclear.

Objective

To review studies comparing different breast cancer screening strategies for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Data Sources

MEDLINE, Cochrane Library through August 22, 2022; literature surveillance through March 2024.

Study Selection

English-language publications; randomized clinical trials and nonrandomized studies comparing screening strategies; expanded criteria for screening harms.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Two reviewers independently assessed study eligibility and quality; data extracted from fair- and good-quality studies.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Mortality, morbidity, progression to advanced cancer, interval cancers, screening harms.

Results

Seven randomized clinical trials and 13 nonrandomized studies were included; 2 nonrandomized studies reported mortality outcomes. A nonrandomized trial emulation study estimated no mortality difference for screening beyond age 74 years (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.83 to 1.19]). Advanced cancer detection did not differ following annual or biennial screening intervals in a nonrandomized study. Three trials compared digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) mammography screening with digital mammography alone. With DBT, more invasive cancers were detected at the first screening round than with digital mammography, but there were no statistically significant differences in interval cancers (pooled relative risk, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.64-1.17]; 3 studies [n = 130 196]; I2 = 0%). Risk of advanced cancer (stage II or higher) at the subsequent screening round was not statistically significant for DBT vs digital mammography in the individual trials. Limited evidence from trials and nonrandomized studies suggested lower recall rates with DBT. An RCT randomizing individuals with dense breasts to invitations for supplemental screening with magnetic resonance imaging reported reduced interval cancer risk (relative risk, 0.47 [95% CI, 0.29-0.77]) and additional false-positive recalls and biopsy results with the intervention; no longer-term advanced breast cancer incidence or morbidity and mortality outcomes were available. One RCT and 1 nonrandomized study of supplemental ultrasound screening reported additional false-positives and no differences in interval cancers.

Conclusions and Relevance

Evidence comparing the effectiveness of different breast cancer screening strategies is inconclusive because key studies have not yet been completed and few studies have reported the stage shift or mortality outcomes necessary to assess relative benefits.

Implementation of a Novel Patient Decision Aid for Women with Elevated Breast Cancer Risk Who Are Considering MRI Screening: A Pilot Study

PURPOSE

To determine the feasibility and acceptability of using a patient decision aid (DA) for women with elevated breast cancer risk who are considering MRI screening.

METHODS

This pilot study employed a mixed methods design to develop, modify, and test an interactive DA. The DA was administered among a consecutive patient sample with an estimated Tyrer-Cuzick v.8 lifetime breast cancer risk of 20% or greater and without a pathologic genetic mutation. The decisional conflict scale was used to measure decisional conflict. Post-intervention provider and patient feedback evaluated shared decision-making, feasibility, and acceptability.

RESULTS

Twenty-four patients participated, with a median age of 44 years. Prior to DA use, sixteen patients (67%) were unsure whether to add MRI to their screening, six patients elected MRI (25%), and two patients declined MRI (8%). Following DA use, thirteen of sixteen of the initially undecided participants (81%) established a preference, with eleven electing to add MRI screening. Of participants with an initial preference, all maintained the same decision following use of the DA. Prior to the DA, the median decisional conflict score among participants was 25% (range 0-60%) compared with 0% (range 0-25%) after the DA. Healthcare providers reported that the DA was useful and easily incorporated into clinical workflow.

CONCLUSIONS

This pilot study shows that there may be a benefit to DA utilization in the high-risk breast cancer clinic to guide shared decision-making in establishing a screening preference. The findings warrant further research to test the use of the DA in a larger, multi-site trial.

[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.

False-positive incidental lesions detected on contrast-enhanced breast MRI: clinical and imaging features

PURPOSE

To identify demographic and imaging features of MRI-detected enhancing lesions without clinical, ultrasound, and mammographic correlation associated with false-positive outcomes, impacting patient care.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective multi-institutional study of imaging studies and patient's chart review of consecutive women with MRI-detected enhancing lesions without clinical, mammogram, or ultrasound correlation between January and December 2018, who underwent MRI-guided biopsy. According to the BI-RADS lexicon, lesions' frequency and imaging features were recorded. The demographic and imaging characteristics variables were correlated with histopathology as the gold standard and an uneventful follow-up of at least one year. Univariate logistic regression analysis was used to explore the correlation between the baseline variables such as age, genetic mutation, family history of breast cancer, personal history of breast cancer, MRI indication, background parenchymal enhancement, and MRI characteristic of the lesion with the false-positive results in main data and subgroup analysis.

RESULTS

Two hundred nineteen women (median age 49 years; range 26-85 years) with 219 MRI-detected enhancing lesions that underwent MRI-guided vacuum-assisted biopsy during the study period fulfilled the study criteria and formed the study cohort. Out of 219, 180 lesions (82.2%) yielded benign pathology results, including 137 benign outcomes (76%) and 43 high-risk lesions (24%). Most demographic and imaging characteristics variables did not help to differentiate malignant from benign lesions. The variables that showed statistically significant association with true-positive results in univariate analyses were age (OR 1.05; 95% CI 1.02-1.08; p = 0.0015), irregular mass-lesion shape when compared with oval/round mass lesion (OR 11.2; 95% CI 1.6-78.4; p = 0.015), and clumped and clustered ring of enhancement when compared with homogeneous (OR 3.22, 95% CI 1.40-7.40; p = 0.0058). For participants with mass breast lesion, the hyperintense signal on the T2-weighted sequence (compared to the normal fibroglandular signal) was significantly related to the false-positive result (OR 0.13; 95% CI 0.02-0.76; p = 0.024).

CONCLUSION

Young patients, oval/round mass-lesion shape, and homogeneous pattern of non-mass enhancement showed the strongest association with false-positive results of enhancing lesions depicted by MRI. For participants with mass breast lesion, T2-bright mass lesion showed significant association with false-positive result. It may impact the patient's management with a suggestion of follow-up rather than interventional procedure when these demographic and imaging parameters are present, consequently decreasing the patient's anxiety and health care costs.

Prioritizing Screening Mammograms for Immediate Interpretation and Diagnostic Evaluation on the Basis of Risk for Recall

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to develop a prioritization strategy for scheduling immediate screening mammographic interpretation and possible diagnostic evaluation.

METHODS

A population-based cohort with screening mammograms performed from 2012 to 2020 at 126 radiology facilities from 7 Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium registries was identified. Classification trees identified combinations of clinical history (age, BI-RADS® density, time since prior mammogram, history of false-positive recall or biopsy result), screening modality (digital mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis), and facility characteristics (profit status, location, screening volume, practice type, academic affiliation) that grouped screening mammograms by recall rate, with ≥12/100 considered high and ≥16/100 very high. An efficiency ratio was estimated as the percentage of recalls divided by the percentage of mammograms.

RESULTS

The study cohort included 2,674,051 screening mammograms in 925,777 women, with 235,569 recalls. The most important predictor of recall was time since prior mammogram, followed by age, history of false-positive recall, breast density, history of benign biopsy, and screening modality. Recall rates were very high for baseline mammograms (21.3/100; 95% confidence interval, 19.7-23.0) and high for women with ≥5 years since prior mammogram (15.1/100; 95% confidence interval, 14.3-16.1). The 9.2% of mammograms in subgroups with very high and high recall rates accounted for 19.2% of recalls, an efficiency ratio of 2.1 compared with a random approach. Adding women <50 years of age with dense breasts accounted for 20.3% of mammograms and 33.9% of recalls (efficiency ratio = 1.7). Results including facility-level characteristics were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

Prioritizing women with baseline mammograms or ≥5 years since prior mammogram for immediate interpretation and possible diagnostic evaluation could considerably reduce the number of women needing to return for diagnostic imaging at another visit.

Breast Cancer: Risk Assessment, Screening, and Primary Prevention

This review provides an outline of a risk-based approach to breast cancer screening and prevention. All women should be assessed for breast cancer risk starting at age 18 with identification of modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors. Patients can then be stratified into average, moderate, and high-risk groups with personalized screening and prevention plans. Counseling on breast awareness and lifestyle changes is recommended for all women, regardless of risk category. High-risk individuals may benefit from additional screening modalities such as MRI and chemoprevention and should be managed closely by a multidisciplinary team.

Patient, primary care provider, and stakeholder perspectives on mammography screening frequency: lessons learned from a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

U.S. professional organizations have provided conflicting recommendations on annual vs. biennial mammography screening. Potential harms of more frequent screening include increased anxiety and costs of false positive results, including unnecessary breast biopsies and overdiagnosis.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize current practices and beliefs surrounding mammography screening frequency and perspectives on using risk-based screening to inform screening intervals.

DESIGN

Semi-structured interviews informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).

PARTICIPANTS

Patients, primary care providers (PCPs), third-party stakeholders (breast radiologists, radiology administrators, patient advocates).

MAIN MEASURES

Qualitative data, with a codebook developed based upon prespecified implementation science constructs.

KEY RESULTS

We interviewed 25 patients, 11 PCPs, and eight key stakeholders, including three radiologists, two radiology administrators, and three patient advocates. Most patients reported having annual mammograms, however, half believed having mammograms every two years was acceptable. Some women were worried early breast cancer would be missed if undergoing biennial screening. PCPs were equally split between recommending annual and biennial mammograms. Although PCPs were interested in using breast cancer risk models to inform screening decisions, concerns raised include time burden and lack of familiarity with breast cancer risk assessment tools. All breast radiologists believed patients should receive annual mammograms, while patient advocates and radiology administrators were split between annual vs. biennial. Radiologists were worried about missing breast cancer diagnoses when mammograms are not performed yearly. Patient advocates and radiology administrators were more open to biennial mammograms and utilizing risk-based screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Uncertainty remains across stakeholder groups regarding appropriate mammogram screening intervals. Radiologists recommend annual mammography, whereas patients and PCPs were evenly split between annual vs. biennial screening, although both favored annual screening among higher-risk women. Breast cancer risk assessment tools may help facilitate decisions about screening intervals, but face barriers to widespread implementation in the primary care setting. These results will inform future implementation strategies to adopt risk-stratified breast cancer screening.

Navigating Breast Cancer Screening in Rural Missouri: From Patient Navigation to Social Navigation

The National Cancer Institute recently identified rural cancer disparities as a priority issue, dedicating resources to rural cancer prevention, presenting opportunities and also risks. We bring an anthropological concept, social navigation, to bear on a popular public health intervention, patient navigation, increasingly proposed as an "evidence-based" approach to reducing health disparities. Our study of mammography in the Missouri Bootheel demonstrates how such interventions elide the shifting terrain and slow violence of rural health care where people must improvise care through trying out or sticking with providers, negotiating self-advocacy and deference, or changing screening timelines amidst structural constraints and rural stereotypes.

Reining in Unnecessary Admission EKGs: A Successful Interdepartmental High-Value Care Initiative

Introduction Unnecessary "admission electrocardiograms (EKGs)" on admitted patients waiting ("boarding") in the emergency department (ED) are often ordered. We introduced evidence-based EKG ordering guidelines and determined changes in the percent of patients with "preadmission" and "admission" EKGs ordered before vs. after guideline introduction and which patient characteristics predicted EKG ordering. Methods In 2016, our ED, cardiology, and hospitalist services implemented EKG ordering guidelines to reduce unnecessary ED EKGs ordered after disposition. We compared pre- vs. post-guideline EKG ordering to determine whether guidelines were associated with changes in "preadmission" or "admission EKG" ordering. Patients with an admission diagnosis unrelated to cardiac or pulmonary systems were included. An EKG was "admission" if the order time was after disposition time. The numerator was the number of "admission EKGs" ordered; the denominator was the total number of such admissions; those with "preadmission EKGs" were excluded from this analysis. Variables that might influence EKG ordering were explored. The chi-square test with Bonferroni adjustment was used to compare 2015 vs. 2016 percentages of patients with an "admission EKG." Results There was a decrease in unwarranted "admission EKGs" among ED boarding patients (44.1% pre-implementation to 27.5% by two years post-implementation) and an increase in unwarranted "preadmission EKGs" (66.1% pre-implementation to 72.8% post-implementation). Age ≥40 and past medical history independently predicted EKG ordering. Discussion The decrease in the ordering of "admission EKGs" but "preadmission EKGs" suggests the decline reflects a true change in ordering and not a general environmental/ecologic decline in ordering. This highlights the importance of careful guideline development and implementation.

Are women satisfied with their experience with breast cancer screening? Systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND

The evaluation of participant experience is an essential part of monitoring the quality of breast cancer screening services. Satisfaction of services can lead to good adherence and hence affect health outcomes.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review to assess how satisfied women were with organized breast cancer screening programs. A literature search in Medline, CINAHL, Embase and PsycINFO from 1965 to October 2019 was performed. Articles reporting a quantitative measure of satisfaction collected via questionnaires in programs using mammography as a screening test were selected. We narratively synthesized the data and used tabulated summaries.

RESULTS

Out of 4310 individual citations, 3099 abstracts were reviewed by two independent researchers, and 126 articles were selected for full-text reading. Finally, 48 studies, published between 1990 and 2018, were included in analysis, reporting 54 surveys in the context of an organized screening program, 37 on satisfaction with screening mammography, 14 on satisfaction with further assessments and 3 with counseling. Most studies reported a high level of satisfaction for both mammography and further assessments. Despite commonly reported temporary pain, discomfort and anxiety, the willingness to be re-screened was very high. Effective information transfer, the staff's interpersonal skills and quick delivery of results correlated with high satisfaction. Only 7 out of 54 surveys used recognized satisfaction instruments or their modifications.

CONCLUSIONS

In general, satisfaction with breast cancer screening is high, but its evaluation is mainly performed using non-validated instruments. Emphasis should be put on effective communication, the staff´s interpersonal skills and quick delivery of results.

Subsequent attendance in a breast cancer screening program after a false-positive result in the Local Health Authority of Bologna (Italy)

We conducted a cross-sectional study to assess the likelihood of returning for routine breast cancer screening among women who have experienced a false-positive result (FPR) and to describe the possible individual and organizational factors that could influence subsequent attendance to the screening program. Several information were collected on demographic and clinical characteristics data. Electronic data from 2014 to 2016 related to breast screening program of the Local Health Authority (LHA) of Bologna (Italy) of women between 45 and 74 years old were reviewed. A total of 4847 women experienced an FPR during mammographic screening and were recalled to subsequent round; 80.2% adhered to the screening. Mean age was 54.2 ± 8.4 years old. Women resulted to be less likely to adhere to screening if they were not-Italian (p = 0.001), if they lived in the Bologna district (p < 0.001), if they had to wait more than 5 days from II level test to end of diagnostic procedures (p = 0.001), if the diagnostic tests were performed in a hospital with the less volume of activity and higher recall rate (RR) (p < 0.001) and if they had no previous participation to screening tests (p < 0.001). Our results are consistent with previous studies, and encourages the implementation and innovation of the organizational characteristics for breast cancer screening. The success of screening programs requires an efficient indicators monitoring strategy to develop and evaluate continuous improvement processes.

The "Sweet Spot" Revisited: Optimal Recall Rates for Cancer Detection With 2D and 3D Digital Screening Mammography in the Metro Chicago Breast Cancer Registry

OBJECTIVE. One central question pertaining to mammography quality relates to discerning the optimal recall rate to maximize cancer detection while minimizing unnecessary downstream diagnostic imaging and breast biopsies. We examined the trade-offs for higher recall rates in terms of biopsy recommendations and cancer detection in a single large health care organization. MATERIALS AND METHODS. We included 2D analog, 2D digital, and 3D digital (tomosynthesis) screening mammography examinations among women 40-79 years old performed between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2017, with cancer follow-up through 2018. There were 36, 67, and 38 radiologists who read at least 1000 2D analog examinations, 2D digital examinations, and 3D tomosynthesis examinations, respectively, who were included in these analyses. Using logistic regression with marginal standardization, we estimated radiologist-specific mean recall (abnormal interpretations/1000 mammograms), biopsy recommendation, cancer detection (screening-detected in situ and invasive cancers/1000 mammograms), and minimally invasive cancer detection rates while adjusting for differences in patient characteristics. RESULTS. Among 1,060,655 screening mammograms, the mean recall rate was 10.7%, the cancer detection rate was 4.0/1000 mammograms, and the biopsy recommendation rate was 1.60%. Recall rates between 7% and 9% appeared to maximize cancer detection while minimizing unnecessary biopsies. CONCLUSION. The results of this investigation are in contrast to those of a recent study suggesting appropriateness of higher recall rates. The "sweet spot" for optimal cancer detection appears to be in the recall rate range of 7-9% for both 2D digital mammography and 3D tomosynthesis. Too many women are being called back for diagnostic imaging, and new benchmarks could be set to reduce this burden.

Personalized Screening for Breast Cancer: Rationale, Present Practices, and Future Directions

Ever since screening for early breast cancer (BC) diagnosis was shown to decrease mortality from the disease, screening programs have been widely implemented throughout the world. Targeted age groups and schedules vary between countries but the majority use a population-based approach, regardless of personal BC risk. The purpose of this review was to describe current population-based screening practices, point out some of the shortcomings of these practices, describe BC risk factors and risk assessment models, and present ongoing clinical trials of personalized risk-adapted BC screening. Three ongoing, large-scale, randomized controlled clinical trials (WISDOM in the US, MyPEBS in Europe, and TBST in Italy) were identified through a search of the MEDLINE and US National Library of Medicine (ClinicalTrials.gov) databases. In these trials, women either undergo standard or personalized screening. The trials vary in methods of risk stratification and screening modalities, but all aim to examine whether personalized risk-adapted screening can safely replace the current population-based approach and lead to rates of advanced-stage BC at diagnosis comparable with those of current screening regimens. The results of these trials may change current population-based screening practices.

Harms and Benefits of Cancer Screening

In recommending and offering screening, health services make a health claim ('it's good for you'). This article considers ethical aspects of establishing the case for cancer screening, building a service programme, monitoring its operation, improving its quality and integrating it with medical progress. The value of (first) screening is derived as a function of key parameters: prevalence of the target lesion in the detectable pre-clinical phase, the validity of the test and the respective net utilities or values attributed to four health states-true positives, false positives, false negatives and true negatives. Decision makers as diverse as public regulatory agencies, medical associations, health insurance funds or individual screenees can legitimately come up with different values even when presented with the same evidence base. The main intended benefit of screening is the reduction of cause-specific mortality. All-cause mortality is not measurably affected. Overdiagnosis and false-positive tests with their sequelae are the main harms. Harms and benefits accrue to distinct individuals. Hence the health claim is an invitation to a lottery with benefits for few and harms to many, a violation of the non-maleficence principle. While a public decision maker may still propose a justified screening programme, respect for individual rights and values requires preference-sensitive, autonomy-enhancing educational materials-even at the expense of programme effectiveness. Opt-in recommendations and more 'consumer-oriented' qualitative research are needed.

Cancer Screening in Older Adults: Individualized Decision-Making and Communication Strategies

Cancer screening decisions in older adults can be complex due to the unclear cancer-specific mortality benefits of screening and several known harms including false positives, overdiagnosis, and procedural complications from downstream diagnostic interventions. In this review, we provide a framework for individualized cancer screening decisions among older adults, involving accounting for overall health and life expectancy, individual values, and the risks and benefits of specific cancer screening tests. We then discuss strategies for effective communication of recommendations during clinical visits that are considered more effective, easy to understand, and acceptable by older adults and clinicians.

Breast cancer supplemental screening: Women's knowledge and utilization in the era of dense breast legislation

Background

Given the growth in dense breast notification (DBN) legislation in the United States, we examined the association between different types of DBN laws and supplemental screening behaviors among women.

Methods

We surveyed in March–April 2018 a nationally representative sample of women aged 40‐59 years who received a routine screening mammogram in the past 18 months. Survey items included the following topics regarding supplemental screening: discussing risks or benefits with a provider, knowledge about the risk of false positives, and utilization. We grouped women by state DBN into non‐DBN, generic DBN (mentions breast density but not supplemental screening), DBN that mentions supplemental screening (DBN‐SS), and DBN with mandated insurance coverage for supplemental screening (DBN‐coverage), and estimated adjusted predicted probabilities for supplemental screening behaviors.

Results

Of 1641 women surveyed, 21.3% resided in non‐DBN, 41.2% in generic DBN, 25.8% in DBN‐SS, and 12.5% in DBN‐coverage states. Overall, 23.0% of respondents had discussed supplemental screening with a provider, 11.3% of whom discussed the risks, and 49.5% discussed the benefits. In adjusted analysis, women living in DBN‐coverage states were more likely to discuss supplemental screening (27.5%) than women in non‐DBN states (13.6%); pairwise contrast 13.8% (95% CI, 2.1% to 25.6%; P = .01). They were also more likely to have received supplemental screening for increased breast density (19.3%) compared to women living in non‐DBN (9.9%); contrast 9.4% (95% CI, 1.6% to 17.3%; P = .01), Generic DBN (7.3%); difference 12.0% (95% CI, 4.6% to 19.4%; P =< .001), and DBN‐SS (8.8%); contrast 10.5% (95% CI, 2.6% to 18.5%; P < .01) states.

Conclusions

Women in DBN‐coverage states were more likely to discuss supplemental screening with their providers, and to undergo supplemental screening, compared to women in states with other types of DBN laws, or without DBN laws.

Consensus Review of Discordant Imaging Findings after the Introduction of Digital Screening Mammography: Irish National Breast Cancer Screening Program Experience

Background When there are discordant results between individual readers interpreting screening mammograms, consensus by independent readers may reduce unnecessary recalls for further work-up. Few studies have looked at consensus outcomes following the introduction of full-field digital mammography (FFDM). Purpose To determine outcomes of women discussed at consensus meetings during a 5-year period after introduction of FFDM, including recall rates, cancer detection, and interval cancers. Materials and Methods In this retrospective study from January 2010 to December 2014, the authors reviewed all screening mammograms from a single unit of a biennial Irish national breast screening program after the introduction of FFDM. Screening mammograms were double reported. Abnormalities detected at discordant screening mammography readings were discussed at biweekly consensus meetings. Outcomes of consensus meetings were reviewed in terms of referral for assessment, biopsy rates, cancer detection, and outcomes from later rounds of screening. Statistical analysis was performed by using a χ² test to compare recall rate and cancer detection rates between FFDM and screen-film mammography based on a previously published study from the authors' institution. Results A total of 2565 women (age range, 50-64 years) with discordant mammographic findings were discussed at consensus meetings. Of these 2565 women, 1037 (40%) were referred for further assessment; 108 cancers were detected in these women. Of the 1285 women who returned to biennial screening, malignancy was detected at the site of original concern in 12 women at a further round of screening. Three true interval cancers were identified. Sensitivity (88.5% [108 of 122]; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 81.5%, 93.6%) and negative predictive value (99.1% [1528 of 1542]; 95% CI: 98.5%, 99.4%) of consensus review remained stable after the introduction of FFDM. Specificity of consensus review increased from 57.6% (729 of 1264; 95% CI: 54.9%, 60.4%) to 62.2% (1528 of 2457; 95% CI: 60.2%, 64.1%) (P = .008). Conclusion Consensus review of discordant mammographic screening-detected abnormalities remains a valuable tool after introduction of full-field digital mammography as it reduces recall for assessment and demonstrates persistently high sensitivity and negative predictive values. © RSNA, 2020 See also the editorial by Hofvind and Lee in this issue.

The Advent of Salivary Breast Cancer Biomarker Detection Using Affinity Sensors

Breast Cancer is one of the world's most notorious diseases affecting two million women in 2018 worldwide. It is a highly heterogeneous disease, making it difficult to treat. However, its linear progression makes it a candidate for early screening programs, and the earlier its detection the higher the chance of recovery. However, one key hurdle for breast cancer screening is the fact that most screening techniques are expensive, time-consuming, and cumbersome, making them impractical for use in several parts of the world. One current trend in breast cancer detection has pointed to a possible solution, the use of salivary breast cancer biomarkers. Saliva is an attractive medium for diagnosis because it is readily available in large quantities, easy to obtain at low cost, and contains all the biomarkers present in blood, albeit in lower quantities. Affinity sensors are devices that detect molecules through their interactions with biological recognition molecules. Their low cost, high sensitivity, and selectivity, as well as rapid detection time make them an attractive alternative to traditional means of detection. In this review article, we discuss the current status of breast cancer diagnosis, its salivary biomarkers, as well as the current trends in the development of affinity sensors for their detection.

Patient, Radiologist, and Examination Characteristics Affecting Screening Mammography Recall Rates in a Large Academic Practice

OBJECTIVE

The aims of this study were to evaluate patient, radiologist, and examination characteristics affecting screening mammography recall rates in an academic breast imaging practice and to identify modifiable factors that could reduce recall variation.

METHODS

This institutional review board-approved retrospective study included screening mammographic examinations in female patients interpreted by 13 breast imaging specialists at an academic center and two outpatient centers from October 1, 2012, to May 31, 2015. Patient demographics were extracted via electronic medical record. Natural language processing captured breast density, BI-RADS assignment, and current and prior screening examination findings. Radiologists' annual screening volumes, clinical experience, and concentration in breast imaging were calculated. Risk aversion, stress from uncertainty, and malpractice concerns were derived via survey. Univariate and multivariate analyses assessed patient, radiologist, and examination characteristics associated with likelihood of mammography recall. The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient was used to assess the relationship between cancer detection rate and recall rate.

RESULTS

Overall, 5,678 of 61,198 screening examinations (9.3%) were recalled. In multivariate analysis, patient and radiologist characteristics associated with higher odds of recall included patient's age < 50 years (P < .0001), prior mammographic findings (calcification [P < .0001], mass [P < .0001], higher density category [P < .0001]), baseline examination (P < .0001), annual reading volume < 1,250 examinations (P = .0282), and <10 years of experience (P = .0036). Radiologist's risk aversion, stress from uncertainty, malpractice concerns, and cancer detection rates were not associated with higher recall rates (r = -0.36, P = .23).

CONCLUSIONS

In addition to patient and examination factors, screening recall variations were associated with radiologists' annual reading volume and experience. Interventions targeting radiologist factors (screening volumes, second review of potential recalls) may help reduce unwarranted variation in screening recall.

Use of Breast Cancer Screening and Its Association with Later Use of Preventive Services among Medicare Beneficiaries

Purpose To retrospectively assess whether there is an association between screening mammography and the use of a variety of preventive services in women who are enrolled in Medicare. Materials and Methods U.S. Medicare claims from 2010 to 2014 Research Identifiable Files were reviewed to retrospectively identify a group of women who underwent screening mammography and a control group without screening mammography in 2012. The screened group was divided into positive versus negative results at screening, and the positive subgroup was divided into false-positive and true-positive findings. Multivariate logistic regression models and inverse probability of treatment weighting were used to examine the relationship between screening status and the probabilities of undergoing Papanicolaou test, bone mass measurement, or influenza vaccination in the following 2 years. Results The cohort consisted of 555 705 patients, of whom 185 625 (33.4%) underwent mammography. After adjusting for patient demographics, comorbidities, geographic covariates, and baseline preventive care, women who underwent index screening mammography (with either positive or negative results) were more likely than unscreened women to later undergo Papanicolaou test (odds ratio [OR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval: 1.40, 1.58), bone mass measurement (OR, 1.70; 95% confidence interval: 1.63, 1.78), and influenza vaccine (OR, 1.45; 95% confidence interval: 1.37, 1.53). In women who had not undergone these preventive measures in the 2 years before screening mammography, use of these three services after false-positive findings at screening was no different than after true-negative findings at screening. Conclusion In beneficiaries of U.S. Medicare, use of screening mammography was associated with higher likelihood of adherence to other preventive guidelines, without a negative association between false-positive results and cervical cancer screening.

Implications of false-positive results for future cancer screenings

BACKGROUND

False-positive cancer screening results may affect a patient's willingness to obtain future screening.

METHODS

The authors conducted logistic regression analysis of 450,484 person-years of electronic medical records (2006-2015) in 92,405 individuals aged 50 to 75 years. Exposures were false-positive breast, prostate, or colorectal cancer screening test results (repeat breast imaging or negative breast biopsy ≤3 months after screening mammography, repeat prostate-specific antigen [PSA] test ≤3 months after PSA test result ≥4.0 ng/mL or negative prostate biopsy ≤3 months after any PSA result, or negative colonoscopy [without biopsy/polypectomy] ≤6 months after a positive fecal occult blood test). Outcomes were up-to-date status with breast or colorectal cancer screening. Covariates included prior screening history, clinical information (eg, family history, obesity, and smoking status), comorbidity, and demographics.

RESULTS

Women were more likely to be up to date with breast cancer screening if they previously had false-positive mammography findings (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.43 [95% confidence interval, 1.34-1.51] without breast biopsy and AOR, 2.02 [95% confidence interval, 1.56-2.62] with breast biopsy; both P<.001). The same women were more likely to be up to date with colorectal cancer screening (AOR range, 1.25-1.47 depending on breast biopsy; both P<.001). Men who previously had false-positive PSA testing were more likely to be up to date with colorectal cancer screening (AOR, 1.22 [P = .039] without prostate imaging/biopsy and AOR, 1.60 [P = .028] with imaging/biopsy). Results were stronger for individuals with more false-positive results (all P≤.005). However, women with previous false-positive colorectal cancer fecal occult blood test screening results were found to be less likely to be up to date with breast cancer screening (AOR, 0.73; P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who previously had a false-positive breast or prostate cancer screening test were more likely to engage in future screening. Cancer 2018;124:2390-8. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Stereotactic Breast Biopsy With Benign Results Does Not Negatively Affect Future Screening Adherence

PURPOSE

To evaluate whether false-positive stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy (SVAB) affects subsequent mammographic screening adherence.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This Institutional Review Board-approved, HIPAA-compliant retrospective review of women with SVAB was performed between 2012 and 2014. Patient age, clinical history, biopsy pathology, and first postbiopsy screening mammogram were reviewed. Statistical analyses were performed using Fisher's exact, Mann-Whitney, and χ² tests.

RESULTS

There were 913 SVABs performed in 2012 to 2014 for imaging detected lesions; of these, malignant or high-risk lesions or biopsies resulting in a recommendation of surgical excision were excluded, leaving 395 SVABs yielding benign pathology in 395 women. Findings were matched with a control population consisting of 45,126 women who had a BI-RADS 1 or 2 screening mammogram and did not undergo breast biopsy. In all, 191 of 395 (48.4%) women with a biopsy with benign results and 22,668 of 45,126 (50.2%) women without biopsy returned for annual follow-up >9 months and ≤18 months after the index examination (P = .479). In addition, 57 of 395 (14.4%) women with a biopsy with benign results and 3,336 of 45,126 (7.4%) women without biopsy returned for annual follow-up >18 months after the index examination (P < .001). Older women, women with personal history of breast cancer, and women with postbiopsy complication after benign SVAB were more likely to return for screening (P = .026, P = .028, and P = .026, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The findings in our study suggest that SVABs with benign results do not negatively impact screening mammography adherence. The previously described "harms" of false-positive mammography and biopsy may be exaggerated.

Not all false positive diagnoses are equal: On the prognostic implications of false-positive diagnoses made in breast MRI versus in mammography / digital tomosynthesis screening

Background

Breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been reported to frequently result in false-positive diagnoses, limiting its positive predictive value (PPV). However, for PPV calculation, all nonmalignant tissue changes are equally considered false-positive, although the respective prognostic importance, and thus patient management implications, of different pathologies may well differ. We investigated the pathology of false-positive diagnoses made by MRI compared with radiographic (digital mammography/tomosynthesis [DM/DBT]) screening.

Methods

We conducted an institutional review board-approved prospective analysis of 710 consecutive asymptomatic women at average risk for breast cancer who underwent vacuum biopsy with or without surgical biopsy for screen-detected DM/DBT (n = 344) or MRI (n = 366) findings. We compared the frequency of false-positive biopsies (given by PPV3), as well as the types of nonmalignant tissue changes that caused the respective false-positive biopsies. In an order of increasing relative risk of subsequent breast cancer, pathologies of false-positive biopsies were categorized as nonproliferative, simple proliferative, complex proliferative, or atypical proliferative (including lobular carcinoma in situ/lobular intraepithelial neoplasia). The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare distributions.

Results

Histology yielded nonmalignant tissue in 202 of 366 biopsies done for positive MRI studies and 195 of 344 biopsies for positive DM/DBT studies, respectively, yielding a similar PPV3 percentages of 44.8% (164 of 202) and 43.3% (149 of 202) for both methods. However, the distribution of tissue types that caused false-positive diagnoses differed significantly (p < 0.0001). On the basis of MRI, high-risk atypical proliferative changes (40.1%; 81 of 202) were most common, followed by complex proliferative changes (23.8%; 48 of 202). In DM/DBT, low-risk, nonproliferative changes were the dominant reason for false-positive diagnoses (49.7%; 97 of 195), followed by simple proliferative changes (25.2%; 51 of 195). Low-risk nonproliferative changes resulted in false-positive diagnoses based on MRI as infrequently as did high-risk atypical proliferative changes based on DM/DBT (18.8% [38 of 202] vs. 18.0% [35 of 195]). The likelihood of a false-positive diagnosis including atypias was twice as high in women undergoing biopsy for MRI findings (81 of 202; 40%) as for those with DM/DBT findings (35 of 195; 18%).

Conclusions

The prognostic importance, and thus the clinical implications, of false-positive diagnoses made on the basis of breast MRI vs. radiographic screening differed significantly, with a reversed prevalence of high- and low-risk lesions. This should be taken into account when discussing the rate of false-positive diagnoses (i.e., PPV levels of MRI vs. radiographic screening). Current benchmarks that rate the utility of breast cancer screening programs (i.e., cancer detection rates and PPVs) do not reflect these substantial biological differences and the different prognostic implications.

The WISDOM Study: breaking the deadlock in the breast cancer screening debate

There are few medical issues that have generated as much controversy as screening for breast cancer. In science, controversy often stimulates innovation; however, the intensely divisive debate over mammographic screening has had the opposite effect and has stifled progress. The same two questions—whether it is better to screen annually or bi-annually, and whether women are best served by beginning screening at 40 or some later age—have been debated for 20 years, based on data generated three to four decades ago. The controversy has continued largely because our current approach to screening assumes all women have the same risk for the same type of breast cancer. In fact, we now know that cancers vary tremendously in terms of timing of onset, rate of growth, and probability of metastasis. In an era of personalized medicine, we have the opportunity to investigate tailored screening based on a woman’s specific risk for a specific tumor type, generating new data that can inform best practices rather than to continue the rancorous debate. It is time to move from debate to wisdom by asking new questions and generating new knowledge. The WISDOM Study (Women Informed to Screen Depending On Measures of risk) is a pragmatic, adaptive, randomized clinical trial comparing a comprehensive risk-based, or personalized approach to traditional annual breast cancer screening. The multicenter trial will enroll 100,000 women, powered for a primary endpoint of non-inferiority with respect to the number of late stage cancers detected. The trial will determine whether screening based on personalized risk is as safe, less morbid, preferred by women, will facilitate prevention for those most likely to benefit, and adapt as we learn who is at risk for what kind of cancer. Funded by the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute, WISDOM is the product of a multi-year stakeholder engagement process that has brought together consumers, advocates, primary care physicians, specialists, policy makers, technology companies and payers to help break the deadlock in this debate and advance towards a new, dynamic approach to breast cancer screening.

The Effect of False-positive Mammograms on Antidepressant and Anxiolytic Initiation

BACKGROUND

Despite reported increases in anxiety following a false-positive mammogram, there is little evidence the effect rises to the clinical level of initiating medication.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the effect of a false-positive mammogram on antidepressant or anxiolytic initiation and identify subpopulations most at risk.

SUBJECTS

MarketScan commercial and Medicaid claims databases used to identify women ages 40-64 undergoing screening mammography with no prior antidepressant or anxiolytic claims.

RESEARCH DESIGN

Using a retrospective cohort design, we estimated the effects of a false-positive relative to a negative mammogram on the likelihood of initiating antidepressants or anxiolytics using multivariate logistic models estimated separately by insurance type.

RESULTS

At 3 months after a false-positive mammogram, the relative risk (RR) for antidepressant or anxiolytic initiation was 1.19 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.06-1.31] for the commercially insured and 1.13 (95% CI, 0.96-1.29) in the Medicaid population. In addition, 4 subgroups were at particularly elevated risk: commercially insured women ages 40-49 (RR=1.33; 95% CI, 1.13-1.54) or whose false-positive required multiple tests to resolve (RR=1.37; 95% CI, 1.17-1.57), included a biopsy (RR=1.68; 95% CI, 1.18-2.17), or whose resolution took >1 week (RR=1.21; 95% CI, 1.07-1.34).

CONCLUSIONS

False-positive mammograms were associated with significant increases in antidepressant or anxiolytic imitation among the commercially insured. Follow-up resources may be particularly beneficial for cases taking longer to resolve and involving biopsies or multiple tests. The results highlight the need to resolve false-positives quickly and effectively and to monitor depressive symptoms following a positive result.