Should women with implants or a history of treatment for breast cancer be excluded from mammography screening programs?

Performance Metrics of Screening Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Based on Years Since a Prior Breast Cancer Diagnosis

BACKGROUND. Mammography surveillance protocols after breast cancer treatment vary widely. Some practices recommend performing diagnostic mammography for a certain number of years or indefinitely, whereas others recommend returning immediately to screening. OBJECTIVE. This study's objective was to determine performance metrics of screening digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in patients who resume screening mammography immediately after breast cancer treatment, based on the number of years since the breast cancer diagnosis. METHODS. This retrospective study included screening DBT examinations performed from January 2013 to June 2019 in patients who resumed screening mammography immediately after a prior breast cancer diagnosis. Multivariable logistic regression models with generalized estimating equations were used to evaluate associations between screening performance metrics and years since the prior breast cancer diagnosis, controlling for age, race and ethnicity, breast density, presence of a prior screening mammogram, and interpreting radiologist. RESULTS. The study included 8090 patients (mean age, 65 ± 11 [SD] years) with a prior breast cancer diagnosis who underwent 30,812 screening DBT examinations during the study period. The cancer detection rate (CDR) was 8.6 per 1000 examinations (265/30,812), abnormal interpretation rate (AIR) was 5.7% (1750/30,812), PPV1 was 15.1% (265/1750), sensitivity was 80.3% (265/330), specificity was 95.1% (28,997/30,482), and false-negative rate was 2.1 per 1000 examinations (65/30,812). CDR showed a significant independent positive association with years since breast cancer diagnosis (adjusted OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01-1.05; p < .001), being lowest more than 2 to up to 3 years after diagnosis (4.9 per 1000 examinations) and highest more than 8 to up to 9 years after diagnosis (11.2 per 1000 examinations). AIR showed a significant independent negative association with years since breast cancer diagnosis (adjusted OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.98-1.00; p = .01), being highest 1 year or less after diagnosis (7.5%) and lowest more than 5 to up to 6 years after diagnosis (5.0%). CONCLUSION. Among 8090 patients with a prior breast cancer diagnosis, even though the AIR was higher during the year after diagnosis compared with subsequent years, the AIR remained acceptably low (< 10%) in all years. CLINICAL IMPACT. These results support the study institution's mammographic surveillance protocol for patients with a prior breast cancer diagnosis of returning immediately to DBT screening.

Feasibility of contrast-enhanced mammography in women with breast implants

Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) may provide an alternative to magnetic resonance imaging as a diagnostic exam in women with known or suspected breast cancer or as a screening exam in women at increased risk of breast cancer. Women with breast augmentation, either for oncologic or cosmetic reasons, may fall into this increased risk population and need safe and effective screening and diagnostic imaging tools. Here, we present our clinical practice data in order to demonstrate the feasibility of CEM in women with breast implants. An institutional review board-approved, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant, retrospective review of our tertiary cancer center's database yielded 104 women with breast implants who underwent 198 CEM exams from November 2014 to March 2020. All 198/198 (100%) exams were successfully completed in 104 women. Exam indications included: 174/198 (88%) screening due to increased risk, 10/198 (5%) to evaluate a palpable abnormality, 9/198 (<5%) to evaluate disease extent following neoadjuvant chemotherapy for a known breast malignancy, and 5/198 (<3%) for a 6-month follow-up. 97/104 (93%) women had dense breasts. Routine and implant-displaced low-energy views were obtained with contrast-enhanced images obtained on displaced views for all patients. 197/198 (99.5%) exams yielded no complications. In one exam, the patient experienced mild vasovagal symptoms following the administration of contrast. In conclusion, it is feasible to utilize CEM in both diagnostic and screening capacities in women with breast implants.

Consensus about image quality assessment criteria of breast implants mammography using Delphi method with radiographers and radiologists

Aims

To identify image quality criteria that can be applied to assess breast implant (BI) mammograms according to radiologists and radiographers’ perspectives and to explore the level of agreement about criteria priority.

Methods

A two-round Delphi method using a questionnaire was applied to identify the level of agreement between experts, asking them to rank each image criteria available for mammography according to 4 possible answers (1 = need to have, 2 = nice to have, 3 = not pertinent/appropriate, 4 = do not know). Criteria for craniocaudal (CC), mediolateral-oblique (MLO) and lateral (ML), with and without Eklund manoeuvre, were included. This process was repeated after removing the less relevant criteria.

Results

Between first and second rounds, different results were obtained regarding the criteria to assess CC and MLO images. Details for anatomic areas were considered the most relevant by radiographers during the first round, while general criteria were prioritised during the second round. Radiologists focused more on analysis of the spread of the breast tissue, if the breast was aligned with detector’s centre and level of contrast. The analysis of implant flow, the BI anterior edge and the maximum retropulsion of BI when Eklund manoeuvre is performed were the specific aspects of BI imaging considered as relevant for assessment.

Conclusions

The importance of each criterion used to assess BI mammograms was not the same between radiographers and radiologists, suggesting the two groups of experts are looking for different requirements from the image. Further education and training is necessary to align strategies for assessing BI mammograms, and some criteria need to be adapted to reduce subjectivity.

Study of breast implants mammography examinations for identification of suitable image quality criteria

PURPOSE

To characterise the mammography technique used in breast cancer screening programmes for breast implants (BI) and to identify if the image quality (IQ) criteria available in literature are applicable to BI imaging.

METHODS

The study was conducted in two phases: literature review to find IQ criteria used in mammography combining keywords in several sources; and assessment of 1207 BI mammograms using the criteria that was identified previously to see if they were achieved or not. An observation grid was used to collect information about positioning, beam energy, compression force, and exposure mode. Descriptive statistics and Student's t test and χ2 test were performed according to the nature of the variables.

RESULTS

Forty-seven out of 2188 documents were included in the analysis, with 13 items identified to assess the quality of positioning, 4 for sharpness, 3 for artefacts, and 2 for exposure parameters. After applying the criteria to BI mammograms, retroglandular fat was not included in 37.3% of the images. The "Pectoral-Nipple-Line" criterion was achieved in 35% of MLO/ML images. The placement of the implant (subpectoral/subglandular) or performing the Eklund had significant influence on the visible anatomy (p = < 0.005), alongside whether the breast was aligned to the detector's centre.

CONCLUSIONS

Some of the criteria used to assess standard mammograms were not applicable to BI due to implant overlap. The alignment of the image with the detector's centre seems to have an impact on the amount of visible tissue. Further studies are necessary to define the appropriate protocol, technique, and suitable quality criteria to assess BI mammograms.

Recommendations for breast imaging follow-up of women with a previous history of breast cancer: position paper from the Italian Group for Mammography Screening (GISMa) and the Italian College of Breast Radiologists (ICBR) by SIRM

Women who were previously treated for breast cancer (BC) are an important particular subgroup of women at intermediate BC risk. Their breast follow-up should be planned taking in consideration a 1.0-1.5 % annual rate of loco-regional recurrences and new ipsilateral or contralateral BCs during 15-20 years, and be based on a regional/district invitation system. This activity should be carried out by a Department of Radiology integrating screening and diagnostics in the context of a Breast Unit. We recommend the adoption of protocols dedicated to women previously treated for BC, with a clear definition of responsibilities, methods for invitation, site(s) of visits, methods for clinical and radiological evaluation, follow-up duration, role and function of family doctors and specialists. These women will be invited to get a mammogram in dedicated sessions starting from the year after the end of treatment. The planned follow-up duration will be at least 10 years and will be defined on the basis of patient's age and preferences, taking into consideration organizational matters. Special agreements can be defined in the case of women who have their follow-up planned at other qualified centers. Dedicated screening sessions should include: evaluation of familial/personal history (if previously not done) for identifying high-risk conditions which could indicate a different screening strategy; immediate evaluation of mammograms by one or, when possible, two breast radiologists with possible addition of supplemental mammographic views, digital breast tomosynthesis, clinical breast examination, breast ultrasound; and prompt planning of possible further workup. Results of these screening sessions should be set apart from those of general female population screening and presented in dedicated reports. The following research issues are suggested: further risk stratification and effectiveness of follow-up protocols differentiated also for BC pathologic subtype and molecular classification, and evaluation of different models of survivorship care, also in terms of cost-effectiveness.

Should breast cancer survivors be excluded from, or invited to, organised mammography screening programmes?

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of breast cancer in developed countries has steadily risen over recent decades. Immediate and long-term health needs of patients, including preventive care and screening services, are receiving increasing attention. A question still unresolved is whether breast cancer survivors should receive mammographic surveillance in the clinical or screening setting and, thus, whether they should be excluded from, or invited to, organised mammography screening programmes. The objective of this article is to discuss the many contradictory aspects of this matter.

DISCUSSION

Problems with mammographic surveillance of breast cancer survivors include: weak evidence of a reduction in mortality; lack of evidence in favour of one setting or the other; lack of evidence-based guidelines for the frequency and duration of surveillance; disproportionate emphasis placed on the first few years post-treatment, probably dictated by surgical and oncological priorities; a variety of screening policies, as these women are permanently or temporarily or partially excluded from many - but not all - organised screening programmes worldwide; an even greater disparity in follow-up protocols used in the clinical setting; a paucity of data on compliance to mammographic surveillance in both settings; and a difficulty in coordinating the roles of health care providers. In the future, the use of mammography in breast cancer survivors will be influenced by the inclusion of women aged > 69 years in organised screening programmes and the implementation of multidisciplinary breast units, and will probably be investigated by research activities on individual risk assessment and risk-tailored screening. In the interim, current problems can be partially alleviated with some technical solutions in screening data recording, patient flows, and care coordination.

SUMMARY

Mammographic surveillance of breast cancer survivors is situated at the crossroads of numerous different specialist areas of breast cancer control and management. The solutions for current problems probably lie in some important modifications in the conventional screening procedure that are underway or under study. These developments appear to be directed towards a partial modification of the screening rationale, with an adaptation to meet the diversified breast care needs of women. The complexity of the matter constitutes a call to action for several entities to eliminate the barriers to effective research in this field.

Association of recall rates with sensitivity and positive predictive values of screening mammography

OBJECTIVE

The performance of screening mammography is measured mainly by its sensitivity, positive predictive value, and cancer detection rate. Recall rates are also suggested as a surrogate measure. The main objective of this study was to measure the effect on sensitivity and positive predictive value as recall rates increase in the community practice of mammography.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Mammography and pathology data are linked in the Carolina Mammography Registry, a population-based registry of screening mammography. Our mammography database is created from prospectively collected data from mammography facilities; the data include information on the woman and the imaging studies. Our pathology database is created from prospectively collected breast pathology data received from pathology sites and the Central Cancer Registry. Women in the registry who were 40 years old and older and who underwent screening mammography between January 1994 and June 1998 were included. "Recall rate" was defined as the percentage of screening studies for which further workup was recommended by the radiologist.

RESULTS

The study included 215,665 screening mammograms. The mean age of the women was 56 years. The recall rates of the average practice ranged from 1.9% to 13.4%. Sensitivity rose from a mean of 65% in the lowest recall rates to 80.2% at the highest level of recall rates. The positive predictive value of screening decreased from 7.2% in the lowest level of recall to 3.3% in the highest. As recall rates increased, sensitivity increased very little beyond a recall rate of 4.8%, and positive predictive value began decreasing significantly at a recall rate of 5.9%.

CONCLUSION

Practices with recall rates between 4.9% and 5.5% achieve the best trade-off of sensitivity and positive predictive value.