Breast cancer screening in average-risk women: towards personalized screening

Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: Could it be used as a screening test?

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) best detects early malignancy in high-risk women.

METHODS

A retrospective, cross-sectional study, carried out at King Abdulaziz University Hospital, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, included 419 female breast cancer patients aged 16-84 years (mean age of 49). Data were collected from the radiological department's database to compare the MRI, ultrasound (US), and mammography results, with or without tissue biopsy.

RESULTS

In diagnosing benign versus malignant lesions, MRI showed significant agreement with tissue biopsy, with high sensitivity (70%) and specificity (87%); its positive predictive value (PPV) was 92% and negative predictive value (NPV) was 56%. While US has a PPV of 84% and NPV of 63%; with a sensitivity (79%) and specificity (71%). In patients without tissue biopsy, there was little difference between mammography and US compared with MRI results.

CONCLUSION

Magnetic resonance imaging is more effective than US and mammography for early detection of BC. It showed high sensitivity in detecting breast lesions and high specificity in characterizing their nature when correlated with pathological results. Ultrasound screening followed by MRI is suggested for undetected or suspected lesions. This will increase the breast lesion detection rate, reduce unneeded tissue biopsies, and enhance the disease's survival rate.

New Approaches and Recommendations for Risk-Adapted Breast Cancer Screening

Population-based breast cancer screening using mammography as the gold standard imaging modality has been in clinical practice for over 40 years. However, the limitations of mammography in terms of sensitivity and high false-positive rates, particularly in high-risk women, challenge the indiscriminate nature of population-based screening. Additionally, in light of expanding research on new breast cancer risk factors, there is a growing consensus that breast cancer screening should move toward a risk-adapted approach. Recent advancements in breast imaging technology, including contrast material-enhanced mammography (CEM), ultrasound (US) (automated-breast US, Doppler, elastography US), and especially magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (abbreviated, ultrafast, and contrast-agent free), may provide new opportunities for risk-adapted personalized screening strategies. Moreover, the integration of artificial intelligence and radiomics techniques has the potential to enhance the performance of risk-adapted screening. This review article summarizes the current evidence and challenges in breast cancer screening and highlights potential future perspectives for various imaging techniques in a risk-adapted breast cancer screening approach. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 1. TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 5.

Lymphocyte-based challenge DNA-repair assays for personalized health risk assessment

Combinations of genetic and environmental factors are responsible for the development of many human diseases, such as cancer, as demonstrated using various biomarkers. Within this scenario, DNA repair holds a gate-keeper position which determines outcomes after appearance of DNA damage and, therefore, adverse cellular consequences, e.g., initiation of carcinogenesis. DNA repair deficiency and some of the subsequent events can be validated from studies using live cells from cancer patients. However, these deficiencies/events are difficult to demonstrate in live cells from normal individuals because individual variations in DNA repair capacities (DRC) are too low to be measured easily. Such lack of information has been hindering progress in developing personalized disease prevention and intervention protocols, especially among exposed populations. However, using a variety of challenge assays as biomarkers, variations in individual's DRC can be amplified in live cells and be determined. Furthermore, evidence indicates that DRC are not only inherited but can also be modified by environmental factors (e.g., nutritional status and exposure to genotoxic substances). Using these challenge assays, e.g., in live lymphocytes, individual's DRC can be holistically and functionally determined as well as quantitated. With the more precise information, assessment of health risk can be better determined on an individual rather than on a population basis. This review provides a succinct summary on the development and application of recent challenge assays in lymphocytes which can provide measurements of individuals' DRC, and on the latest data for more precise disease prevention and intervention.

The current status of risk-stratified breast screening

Apart from high-risk scenarios such as the presence of highly penetrant genetic mutations, breast screening typically comprises mammography or tomosynthesis strategies defined by age. However, age-based screening ignores the range of breast cancer risks that individual women may possess and is antithetical to the ambitions of personalised early detection. Whilst screening mammography reduces breast cancer mortality, this is at the risk of potentially significant harms including overdiagnosis with overtreatment, and psychological morbidity associated with false positives. In risk-stratified screening, individualised risk assessment may inform screening intensity/interval, starting age, imaging modality used, or even decisions not to screen. However, clear evidence for its benefits and harms needs to be established. In this scoping review, the authors summarise the established and emerging evidence regarding several critical dependencies for successful risk-stratified breast screening: risk prediction model performance, epidemiological studies, retrospective clinical evaluations, health economic evaluations and qualitative research on feasibility and acceptability. Family history, breast density or reproductive factors are not on their own suitable for precisely estimating risk and risk prediction models increasingly incorporate combinations of demographic, clinical, genetic and imaging-related parameters. Clinical evaluations of risk-stratified screening are currently limited. Epidemiological evidence is sparse, and randomised trials only began in recent years.

Views of health professionals on risk-based breast cancer screening and its implementation in the Spanish National Health System: A qualitative discussion group study

BACKGROUND

With the aim of increasing benefits and decreasing harms, risk-based breast cancer screening has been proposed as an alternative to age-based screening. This study explores barriers and facilitators to implementing a risk-based breast cancer screening program from the perspective of health professionals, in the context of a National Health Service.

METHODS

Socio-constructivist qualitative research carried out in Catalonia (Spain), in the year 2019. Four discussion groups were conducted, with a total of 29 health professionals from primary care, breast cancer screening programs, hospital breast units, epidemiology units, and clinical specialties. A descriptive-interpretive thematic analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Identified barriers included resistance to reducing the number of screening exams for low-risk women; resistance to change for health professionals; difficulties in risk communication; lack of conclusive evidence of the benefits of risk-based screening; limited economic resources; and organizational transformation. Facilitators include benefits of risk-based strategies for high and low-risk women; women's active role in their health care; proximity of women and primary care professionals; experience of health professionals in other screening programs; and greater efficiency of a risk-based screening program. Organizational and administrative changes in the health system, commitment by policy makers, training of health professionals, and educational interventions addressed to the general population will be required.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the expressed difficulties, participants supported the implementation of risk-based screening. They highlighted its benefits, especially for women at high risk of breast cancer and those under 50 years of age, and assumed a greater efficiency of the risk-based program compared to the aged-based one. Future studies should assess the efficiency and feasibility of risk-based breast cancer screening for its transfer to clinical practice.

The Effect of Automated Mammogram Orders Paired With Electronic Invitations to Self-schedule on Mammogram Scheduling Outcomes: Observational Cohort Comparison

Background

Screening mammography is recommended for the early detection of breast cancer. The processes for ordering screening mammography often rely on a health care provider order and a scheduler to arrange the time and location of breast imaging. Self-scheduling after automated ordering of screening mammograms may offer a more efficient and convenient way to schedule screening mammograms.

Objective

The aim of this study was to determine the use, outcomes, and efficiency of an automated mammogram ordering and invitation process paired with self-scheduling.

Methods

We examined appointment data from 12 months of scheduled mammogram appointments, starting in September 2019 when a web and mobile app self-scheduling process for screening mammograms was made available for the Mayo Clinic primary care practice. Patients registered to the Mayo Clinic Patient Online Services could view the schedules and book their mammogram appointment via the web or a mobile app. Self-scheduling required no telephone calls or staff appointment schedulers. We examined uptake (count and percentage of patients utilizing self-scheduling), number of appointment actions taken by self-schedulers and by those using staff schedulers, no-show outcomes, scheduling efficiency, and weekend and after-hours use of self-scheduling.

Results

For patients who were registered to patient online services and had screening mammogram appointment activity, 15.3% (14,387/93,901) used the web or mobile app to do either some mammogram self-scheduling or self-cancelling appointment actions. Approximately 24.4% (3285/13,454) of self-scheduling occurred after normal business hours/on weekends. Approximately 9.3% (8736/93,901) of the patients used self-scheduling/cancelling exclusively. For self-scheduled mammograms, there were 5.7% (536/9433) no-shows compared to 4.6% (3590/77,531) no-shows in staff-scheduled mammograms (unadjusted odds ratio 1.24, 95% CI 1.13-1.36; P<.001). The odds ratio of no-shows for self-scheduled mammograms to staff-scheduled mammograms decreased to 1.12 (95% CI 1.02-1.23; P=.02) when adjusted for age, race, and ethnicity. On average, since there were only 0.197 staff-scheduler actions for each finalized self-scheduled appointment, staff schedulers were rarely used to redo or “clean up” self-scheduled appointments. Exclusively self-scheduled appointments were significantly more efficient than staff-scheduled appointments. Self-schedulers experienced a single appointment step process (one and done) for 93.5% (7553/8079) of their finalized appointments; only 74.5% (52,804/70,839) of staff-scheduled finalized appointments had a similar one-step appointment process (P<.001). For staff-scheduled appointments, 25.5% (18,035/70,839) of the finalized appointments took multiple appointment steps. For finalized appointments that were exclusively self-scheduled, only 6.5% (526/8079) took multiple appointment steps. The staff-scheduled to self-scheduled odds ratio of taking multiple steps for a finalized screening mammogram appointment was 4.9 (95% CI 4.48-5.37; P<.001).

Conclusions

Screening mammograms can be efficiently self-scheduled but may be associated with a slight increase in no-shows. Self-scheduling can decrease staff scheduler work and can be convenient for patients who want to manage their appointment scheduling activity after business hours or on weekends.

Molecular Breast Imaging: A Scientific Review

Molecular breast imaging (MBI) is a nuclear medicine technique that has evolved considerably over the past two decades. Technical advances have allowed reductions in administered doses to the point that they are now acceptable for screening. The most common radiotracer used in MBI, 99mTc-sestamibi, has a long history of safe use. Biopsy capability has become available in recent years, with early clinical experience demonstrating technically successful biopsies of MBI-detected lesions. MBI has been shown to be an effective supplemental screening tool in women with dense breasts and is also utilized for breast cancer staging, assessment of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, problem solving, and as an alternative to breast MRI in women who have a contraindication to MRI. The degree of background parenchymal uptake on MBI shows promise as a tool for breast cancer risk stratification. Radiologist interpretation is guided by a validated MBI lexicon that mirrors the BI-RADS lexicon. With short interpretation times, a fast learning curve for radiologists, and a substantially lower cost than breast MRI, MBI provides many benefits in the practices in which it is utilized. This review will discuss the current state of MBI technology, clinical applications of MBI, MBI interpretation, radiation dose associated with MBI, and the future of MBI.

Mammographic Variation Measures, Breast Density, and Breast Cancer Risk

OBJECTIVE. Our previous work showed that variation measures, which represent breast architecture derived from mammograms, were significantly associated with breast cancer. For replication purposes, we examined the association of three variation measures (variation [V], which is measured in the image domain, and P₁ and p₁ [a normalized version of P₁], which are derived from restricted regions in the Fourier domain) with breast cancer risk in an independent population. We also compared these measures to volumetric density measures (volumetric percent density [VPD] and dense volume [DV]) from a commercial product. MATERIALS AND METHODS. We examined 514 patients with breast cancer and 1377 control patients from a screening practice who were matched for age, date of examination, mammography unit, facility, and state of residence. Spearman rank-order correlation was used to evaluate the monotonic association between measures. Breast cancer associations were estimated using conditional logistic regression, after adjustment for age and body mass index. Odds ratios were calculated per SD increment in mammographic measure. RESULTS. These variation measures were strongly correlated with VPD (correlation, 0.68-0.80) but not with DV (correlation, 0.31-0.48). Similar to previous findings, all variation measures were significantly associated with breast cancer (odds ratio per SD: 1.30 [95% CI, 1.16-1.46] for V, 1.55 [95% CI, 1.35-1.77] for P₁, and 1.51 [95% CI, 1.33-1.72] for p₁). Associations of volumetric density measures with breast cancer were similar (odds ratio per SD: 1.54 [95% CI, 1.33-1.78] for VPD and 1.34 [95% CI, 1.20-1.50] for DV). When DV was included with each variation measure in the same model, all measures retained significance. CONCLUSION. Variation measures were significantly associated with breast cancer risk (comparable to the volumetric density measures) but were independent of the DV.

Trends in cancer incidence and mortality rates in the United States from 1975 to 2016

Background

Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the United States (US). The goal of this study was to characterize the trends in cancer incidence and mortality in the US from 1975 to 2016.

Methods

In this study, we analyzed 4,711,958 cancer cases and 21,489,462 cancer death cases from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database. Cancer incidence and mortality were assessed according to sex, race, and age group. Cancer survival rates between 2010 and 2016 were also examined.

Results

The continuous decline in the overall cancer mortality rate from the early 1990s has resulted in overall decreases of 33.6% and 23.6% in the cancer mortality rates of males and females, respectively. In males, the top three leading cancers and causes of cancer death from 1975 to 2016 were prostate, lung and bronchial, and colon and rectal cancers, while in females, the top three leading cancers and causes of cancer death from 1979 to 2016 were breast, lung and bronchial, and colon and rectal cancers. The 5-year relative survival rates of males and females for all cancers combined, diagnosed from 2010-2016, were 68.5% and 70.1%, respectively. The overall cancer incidence and mortality were higher in males than females from 1975-2016. Also, black people had higher mortality and shorter survival rates for all cancers combined compared with white people (in both sexes).

Conclusions

This study presents a comprehensive overview of cancer incidence and mortality in the US over the past 42 years. Such information can provide a scientific basis for cancer prevention and control.

Self-reported symptoms among participants in a population-based screening program

BACKGROUND

A limited number of studies have explored the association between self-reported symptoms and the risk of breast cancer among participants of population based screening programs.

METHODS

We performed descriptive statistics on recall, screen-detected and interval cancer, positive predictive value and histopathological tumour characteristics by symptom group (asymptomatic, lump, and skin or nipple changes) as reported from 785,642 women aged 50-69 when they attended BreastScreen Norway 1996-2016. Uni- and multivariable mixed effects logistic regression models were used to analyze the association between symptom group and screen-detected or interval cancer. Results were presented as odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

A lump or skin/nipple change was reported in 6.2% of the 3,307,697 examinations. The rate of screen-detected cancers per 1000 examinations was 45.2 among women with a self-reported lump and 5.1 among asymptomatic women. Adjusted odds ratio of screen-detected cancer was 10.1 (95% CI: 9.3-11.1) and 2.0 (95% CI: 1.6-2.5) for interval cancer among women with a self-reported lump versus asymptomatic women. Tumour diameter, histologic grade and lymph node involvement of screen-detected and interval cancer were less prognostically favourable for women with a self-reported lump versus asymptomatic women.

CONCLUSION

Despite targeting asymptomatic women, 6.2% of the screening examinations in BreastScreen Norway was performed among women who reported a lump or skin/nipple change when they attended screening. The odds ratio of screen-detected cancer was higher for women with versus without symptoms. Standardized follow-up guidelines might be beneficial for screening programs in order to take care of women reporting signs or symptoms of breast cancer when they attend screening.