Commentary ACOG Practice Bulletin July 2017: Breast Cancer Risk Assessment and Screening in Average-Risk Women

The association between rurality, sociodemographic characteristics, and mammogram screening outcomes among a sample of low-income uninsured women

•

Rurality has been shown to negatively impact breast cancer screening rates.

•

We observed mammography outcomes within a sample of low-income uninsured women.

•

We found that outcomes were independent of sociodemographic factors, like rurality.

•

More research should explore whether this relationship is mediated by other factors.

Studies have found a positive association between adherence to mammography screening guidelines and early detection of breast cancer lesions, yet the proportion of women who get screened for breast cancer remains below national targets. Previous studies have found that mammography screening rates vary by sociodemographic factors including race/ethnicity, income, education, and rurality. It is less known whether sociodemographic factors are also related to mammography screening outcomes in underserved populations. Thus, with a particular interest in rurality, we examined the association between the sociodemographic characteristics and mammography screening outcomes within our sample of 1,419 low-income, uninsured Texas women who received grant-funded mammograms between 2013 and 2019 (n = 1,419). Screening outcomes were recorded as either negative (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) classification 1–3) or positive (BI-RADS classification 4–6). When we conducted independency tests between sociodemographic characteristics (age, race/ethnicity, rurality, county-level risk, family history, and screening compliance) and screening outcomes, we found that none of the factors were significantly associated with mammogram screening outcomes. Similarly, when we regressed screening outcomes on age, race/ethnicity, and rurality via logistic regression, we found that none were significant predictors of a positive screening outcome. Though we did not find evidence of a relationship between rurality and mammography screening outcomes, research suggests that among women who do screen positive for breast cancer, rural women are more likely to present with later stage breast cancer than urban women. Thus, it remains important to continue to increase breast cancer education and access to routine cancer screening for rural women.

Testing a breast cancer prevention and a multiple disease prevention weight loss programme amongst women within the UK NHS breast screening programme-a randomised feasibility study

Background

Excess weight and unhealthy behaviours (e.g. sedentariness, high alcohol) are common amongst women including those attending breast screening. These factors increase the risk of breast cancer and other diseases. We tested the feasibility and acceptability of a weight loss/behaviour change programme framed to reduce breast cancer risk (breast cancer prevention programme, BCPP) compared to one framed to reduce risk of breast cancer, cardiovascular disease (CVD) and diabetes (T2D) (multiple disease prevention programme, MDPP).

Methods

Women aged 47-73 years with overweight or obesity (n = 1356) in the NHS Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) were randomised (1:2) to be invited to join a BCPP or a MDPP. The BCPP included personalised information on breast cancer risk and a web and phone weight loss/behaviour change intervention. The MDPP also included an NHS Health Check (lipids, blood pressure, HbA1c and personalised feedback for risk of CVD [QRISK2] and T2D [QDiabetes and HbA1c]). Primary outcomes were uptake and retention and other feasibility outcomes which include intervention fidelity and prevalence of high CVD and T2D risk. Secondary outcomes included change in weight.

Results

The BCPP and MDPP had comparable rates of uptake: 45/508 (9%) vs. 81/848 (10%) and 12-month retention; 33/45 (73%) vs. 53/81 (65%). Both programmes had a high fidelity of delivery with receipt of mean (95% CI) 90 (88-98% of scheduled calls, 91 (86-95%) of scheduled e-mails and 89 (76-102) website entries per woman over the 12-month period. The MDPP identified 15% of women with a previously unknown 10-year CVD QRISK2 of ≥ 10% and 56% with 10-year Qdiabetes risk of ≥ 10%. Both groups experienced good comparable weight loss: BCPP 26/45 (58%) and MDPP 46/81 (57%) with greater than 5% weight loss at 12 months using baseline observation carried forward imputation.

Conclusions

Both programmes appeared feasible. The MDPP identified previously unknown CVD and T2D risk factors but does not appear to increase engagement with behaviour change beyond a standard BCPP amongst women attending breast screening. A future definitive effectiveness trial of BCPP is supported by acceptable uptake and retention, and good weight loss.

Trial registration

ISRCTN91372184, registered 28 September 2014.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40814-021-00947-4.

Surgical Management of Hereditary Breast Cancer

The identification that breast cancer is hereditary was first described in the nineteenth century. With the identification of the BRCA1 and BRCA 2 breast/ovarian cancer susceptibility genes in the mid-1990s and the introduction of genetic testing, significant advancements have been made in tailoring surveillance, guiding decisions on medical or surgical risk reduction and cancer treatments for genetic variant carriers. This review discusses various medical and surgical management options for hereditary breast cancers.

Palpable Breast Findings in High-risk Patients: Are Self- and Clinical Breast Exams Worthwhile?

OBJECTIVE

To assess breast imaging findings, biopsy rates, and malignancy rates in areas of palpable concern in women at high risk for breast cancer.

METHODS

An IRB-approved retrospective review of a tertiary cancer center's breast imaging database was performed. Breast imaging and electronic medical records of high-risk women with palpable findings detected on self- or clinical breast examination from January 1, 2010, to January 1, 2016, were reviewed. Descriptive statistical analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Imaging correlates for 322 palpable findings in 238 high-risk women included 55/203 (27.1%) on mammography, 183/302 (60.6%) on US, and 20/47 (42.6%) on MRI. Biopsies were performed for 104/322 (32.3%) palpable findings: 95/104 (91.3%) under imaging guidance and 9/104 (8.7%) under palpation after negative imaging. Of 322 palpable findings, 16 (5.0%) were malignant in 16/238 (6.7%) women, yielding a positive predictive value of biopsy of 16.8% (95% CI: 9.2%-24%). Women diagnosed with cancer had 16/16 (100%) sonographic, 9/14 (64.3%) mammographic, and 7/7 (100%) MRI correlates. Cancer histopathology included 12 invasive ductal carcinomas, 1 ductal carcinoma in situ, 1 invasive lobular carcinoma, 1 malignant phyllodes tumor, and 1 metastatic carcinoid tumor. Over two years of follow-up imaging in 183/238 (76.9%) women were reviewed; 7/183 (3.8%) were diagnosed with breast cancer at least one year after presenting with a palpable concern in a different location.

CONCLUSION

High-risk women with palpable findings exhibit a 6.7% malignancy rate, indicating the value of imaging workup in this population. In our cohort, imaging demonstrated a high negative predictive value.

Web-based decision aids to support breast cancer screening decisions: systematic review and meta-analysis

Aim: Breast cancer is a leading cause of cancer among women. Because guidelines on screening for breast cancer for certain ages are controversial, many experts advocate the use of shared decision making (SDM) using validated decision aids (DAs). Recent studies have concluded that DAs are beneficial; however, the results have great heterogeneity. Therefore, further studies are needed to improve understanding of these tools. Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the impact of using web-based DAs in women aged 50 years and below facing the decision to be screened for breast cancer in comparison with usual care. Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and the Cochrane CENTRAL databases were searched up to February 2020 for studies assessing web-based DAs for women making a breast cancer screening decision and reported quality of decision-making outcomes. Using a random-effects model or a fixed-effects model, meta-analyses were conducted pooling results using mean differences (MD), standardized mean differences (SMD) and relative risks (RR). Results: Of 1097 unique citations, three randomized controlled trials and two before-after studies met the study eligibility criteria. Compared with usual care, web-based DAs increased knowledge (SMD = 0.69; 95% CI: 0.57-0.80; p < 0.00001), reduced decision conflict and increased the proportion of women who made an informed choice (RR = 1.86; 95% CI: 1.38 to 2.50; p < 0.0001), but did not change the intention of women deciding to be screened or affect decision regret. Conclusion: This analysis showed the positive effect of web-based DAs on patient-centered outcomes in breast cancer screening. In the future, more internet devices and free or larger discount WI-FI should be established to ensure more women can benefit from this effective tool.

Mammographic screening in male patients at high risk for breast cancer: is it worth it?

PURPOSE

To investigate the utility of mammography for breast cancer screening in a population of males at increased risk for breast cancer.

METHODS

In this HIPAA-compliant institutional review board-approved single-institution study, mammography records and clinical data of 827 male patients who underwent digital mammography from September 2011-July 2018 were analyzed via the electronic medical record. 664 of these men presented with masses, pain, or nipple discharge and were excluded from this study. The remaining 163 asymptomatic men with familial and/or personal history of breast cancer, or with a known germline mutation in BRCA, underwent screening mammography and were included in this analysis.

RESULTS

163 asymptomatic men (age: mean 63 years, range 24-87 years) underwent 806 screening mammograms. 125/163 (77%) had a personal history of breast cancer and 72/163 (44%) had a family history of breast cancer. 24/163 (15%) were known mutation carriers: 4/24 (17%) BRCA1 and 20/24 (83%) BRCA2. 792/806 (98%) of the screening mammograms were negative (BI-RADS 1 or 2); 10/806 (1.2%) were classified as BI-RADS 3, all of which were eventually downgraded to BI-RADS 2 on follow-up. 4/806 (0.4%) mammograms were abnormal (BI-RADS 4/5): all were malignant. The cancer detection rate in this cohort was 4.9 cancers/1000 examinations.

CONCLUSIONS

In our cohort, screening mammography yielded a cancer detection rate of 4.9 cancers/1000 examinations which is like the detection rate of screening mammography in a population of women at average risk, indicating that screening mammography is of value in male patients at high risk for breast cancer.