Missed screening mammography appointments: patient sociodemographic characteristics and mammography completion after one year

OBJECTIVE

Patients who miss screening mammogram (SM) appointments without notifying the healthcare system (no-show) risk care delays. We investigate sociodemographic characteristics of patients who experience SM no-shows at a community health center and whether and when the missed exams are completed.

METHODS

We included patients with SM appointments at a community health center between 1/1/2021-12/31/2021. Language, race, ethnicity, insurance type, residential ZIP code tabulation area (ZCTA) poverty, appointment outcome (no-show, same-day cancellation, completed), and dates of completed SMs after no-show appointments with ≥ 1-year follow-up were collected. Multivariable analyses were used to assess associations between patient characteristics and appointment outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 6,159 patients, 12.1% (743/6,159) experienced no-shows. The no-show group differed from the completed group by language, race and ethnicity, insurance type, and poverty level (all P<.05). Patients with no-shows more often had: primary language other than English (32% [238/743] versus 26.7% [1,265/4,741]), race and ethnicity other than White non-Hispanic (42.3% [314/743] versus 33.6% [1,595/4,742]), Medicaid/means-tested insurance (62.0% [461/743] versus 34.4% [1,629/4,742]), and higher poverty ZCTAs (19.5% [145/743] versus 14.1% [670/4,742]). Independent predictors of no-shows were: Black/non-Hispanic race and ethnicity (aOR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.12-2.07; P=.007), Medicaid/means-tested insurance (aOR, 2.75; 95% CI, 2.29-3.30; P<.001), and higher poverty ZCTAs (aOR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.14-2.72; P=.011). At one-year follow-up, 40.7% (302/743) of patients with no-shows had not completed SM.

DISCUSSION

SM no-shows is a health equity issue where socioeconomically disadvantaged and racial and ethnic minority patients are more likely to experience missed appointments and continued delays in SM completion.

Incidence, Timing, and Long-Term Outcomes of COVID-19 Vaccine-Related Lymphadenopathy on Screening Mammography

OBJECTIVE

To determine the incidence, timing, and long-term outcomes of unilateral axillary lymphadenopathy ipsilateral to vaccine site (UIAL) on screening mammography after COVID-19 vaccination.

METHODS

This retrospective, multisite study included consecutive patients undergoing screening mammography February 8, 2021, to January 31, 2022, with at least 1 year of follow-up. UIAL was typically considered benign (BI-RADS 1 or 2) in the setting of recent (≤6 weeks) vaccination or BI-RADS 0 (ultrasound recommended) when accompanied by a breast finding or identified >6 weeks postvaccination. Vaccination status and manufacturer were obtained from regional registries. Lymphadenopathy rates in vaccinated patients with and without UIAL were compared using Pearson's χ2 test.

RESULTS

There were 44,473 female patients (mean age 60.4 ± 11.4 years) who underwent screening mammography at five sites, and 40,029 (90.0%) received at least one vaccine dose. Ninety-four (0.2%) presented with UIAL, 1 to 191 days postvaccination (median 13.5 [interquartile range: 5.0-31.0]). Incidence declined from 2.1% to 0.9% to ≤0.5% after 1, 2, and 3 weeks and persisted up to 36 weeks (P < .001). UIAL did not vary across manufacturer (P = .15). Of 94, 77 (81.9%) were BI-RADS 1 or 2 at screening. None were diagnosed with malignancy at 1-year follow-up. Seventeen (18.1%) were BI-RADS 0 at screening. At diagnostic workup, 13 (76.5%) were BI-RADS 1 or 2, 2 (11.8%) were BI-RADS 3, and 2 (11.8%) were BI-RADS 4. Both BI-RADS 4 patients had malignant status and ipsilateral breast malignancies. Of BI-RADS 3 patients, at follow-up, one was biopsied yielding benign etiology, and one was downgraded to BI-RADS 2.

DISCUSSION

Isolated UIAL on screening mammography performed within 6 months of COVID-19 vaccination can be safely assessed as benign.

Comparison of the Diagnostic Accuracy of Mammogram-based Deep Learning and Traditional Breast Cancer Risk Models in Patients Who Underwent Supplemental Screening with MRI

Background Access to supplemental screening breast MRI is determined using traditional risk models, which are limited by modest predictive accuracy. Purpose To compare the diagnostic accuracy of a mammogram-based deep learning (DL) risk assessment model to that of traditional breast cancer risk models in patients who underwent supplemental screening with MRI. Materials and Methods This retrospective study included consecutive patients undergoing breast cancer screening MRI from September 2017 to September 2020 at four facilities. Risk was assessed using the Tyrer-Cuzick (TC) and National Cancer Institute Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (BCRAT) 5-year and lifetime models as well as a DL 5-year model that generated a risk score based on the most recent screening mammogram. A risk score of 1.67% or higher defined increased risk for traditional 5-year models, a risk score of 20% or higher defined high risk for traditional lifetime models, and absolute scores of 2.3 or higher and 6.6 or higher defined increased and high risk, respectively, for the DL model. Model accuracy metrics including cancer detection rate (CDR) and positive predictive values (PPVs) (PPV of abnormal findings at screening [PPV1], PPV of biopsies recommended [PPV2], and PPV of biopsies performed [PPV3]) were compared using logistic regression models. Results This study included 2168 women who underwent 4247 high-risk screening MRI examinations (median age, 54 years [IQR, 48-60 years]). CDR (per 1000 examinations) was higher in patients at high risk according to the DL model (20.6 [95% CI: 11.8, 35.6]) than according to the TC (6.0 [95% CI: 2.9, 12.3]; P < .01) and BCRAT (6.8 [95% CI: 2.9, 15.8]; P = .04) lifetime models. PPV1, PPV2, and PPV3 were higher in patients identified as high risk by the DL model (PPV1, 14.6%; PPV2, 32.4%; PPV3, 36.4%) than those identified as high risk with the TC (PPV1, 5.0%; PPV2, 12.7%; PPV3, 13.5%; P value range, .02-.03) and BCRAT (PPV1, 5.5%; PPV2, 11.1%; PPV3, 12.5%; P value range, .02-.05) lifetime models. Conclusion Patients identified as high risk by a mammogram-based DL risk assessment model showed higher CDR at breast screening MRI than patients identified as high risk with traditional risk models. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Bae in this issue.

Standalone AI for Breast Cancer Detection at Screening Digital Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background There is considerable interest in the potential use of artificial intelligence (AI) systems in mammographic screening. However, it is essential to critically evaluate the performance of AI before it can become a modality used for independent mammographic interpretation. Purpose To evaluate the reported standalone performances of AI for interpretation of digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). Materials and Methods A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Google Scholar, Embase (Ovid), and Web of Science databases for studies published from January 2017 to June 2022. Sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) values were reviewed. Study quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 and Comparative (QUADAS-2 and QUADAS-C, respectively). A random effects meta-analysis and meta-regression analysis were performed for overall studies and for different study types (reader studies vs historic cohort studies) and imaging techniques (digital mammography vs DBT). Results In total, 16 studies that include 1 108 328 examinations in 497 091 women were analyzed (six reader studies, seven historic cohort studies on digital mammography, and four studies on DBT). Pooled AUCs were significantly higher for standalone AI than radiologists in the six reader studies on digital mammography (0.87 vs 0.81, P = .002), but not for historic cohort studies (0.89 vs 0.96, P = .152). Four studies on DBT showed significantly higher AUCs in AI compared with radiologists (0.90 vs 0.79, P < .001). Higher sensitivity and lower specificity were seen for standalone AI compared with radiologists. Conclusion Standalone AI for screening digital mammography performed as well as or better than radiologists. Compared with digital mammography, there is an insufficient number of studies to assess the performance of AI systems in the interpretation of DBT screening examinations. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Scaranelo in this issue.

Stacked dilated convolutions and asymmetric architecture for U-Net-based medical image segmentation

Deep learning has been widely utilized for medical image segmentation. The most commonly used U-Net and its variants often share two common characteristics but lack solid evidence for the effectiveness. First, each block (i.e., consecutive convolutions of feature maps of the same resolution) outputs feature maps from the last convolution, limiting the variety of the receptive fields. Second, the network has a symmetric structure where the encoder and the decoder paths have similar numbers of channels. We explored two novel revisions: a stacked dilated operation that outputs feature maps from multi-scale receptive fields to replace the consecutive convolutions; an asymmetric architecture with fewer channels in the decoder path. Two novel models were developed: U-Net using the stacked dilated operation (SDU-Net) and asymmetric SDU-Net (ASDU-Net). We used both publicly available and private datasets to assess the efficacy of the proposed models. Extensive experiments confirmed SDU-Net outperformed or achieved performance similar to the state-of-the-art while using fewer parameters (40% of U-Net). ASDU-Net further reduced the model parameters to 20% of U-Net with performance comparable to SDU-Net. In conclusion, the stacked dilated operation and the asymmetric structure are promising for improving the performance of U-Net and its variants.

Patient Sociodemographic Characteristics Associated With Saturday Breast Imaging Clinic Utilization

OBJECTIVE

To determine patient sociodemographic characteristics associated with breast imaging utilization on Saturdays to inform potential initiatives designed to improve access and reduce disparities in breast cancer care.

METHODS

This was an IRB-approved retrospective cross-sectional study. All adult women (aged ≥18 years) who received a screening or diagnostic examination at our breast imaging facility from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2017 were included. Patient characteristics including age, race, primary language, partnership status, insurance status, and primary care physician status were collected using the electronic medical record. Multiple variable logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate patient characteristics associated with utilization.

RESULTS

Of 53 695 patients who underwent a screening examination and 10 363 patients who underwent a diagnostic examination over our study period, 9.6% (5135/53 695) and 2.0% (209/10 363) of patients obtained their respective examination on a Saturday. In our multiple variable logistic regression analyses, racial/ethnic minorities (odds ratio [OR], 1.5; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.4-1.6; P < 0.01) and women who speak English as a second language (OR, 1.1; 95% CI: 1.0-1.3; P = 0.03) were more likely to obtain their screening mammogram on Saturday than their respective counterparts.

CONCLUSION

Racial/ethnic minorities and women who speak English as a second language were more likely to obtain their screening mammogram on Saturdays than their respective counterparts. Initiatives to extend availability of breast imaging exams outside of standard business hours increases access for historically underserved groups, which can be used as a tool to reduce breast cancer-related disparities in care.

Deep Learning vs Traditional Breast Cancer Risk Models to Support Risk-Based Mammography Screening

BACKGROUND

Deep learning breast cancer risk models demonstrate improved accuracy compared with traditional risk models but have not been prospectively tested. We compared the accuracy of a deep learning risk score derived from the patient's prior mammogram to traditional risk scores to prospectively identify patients with cancer in a cohort due for screening.

METHODS

We collected data on 119 139 bilateral screening mammograms in 57 617 consecutive patients screened at 5 facilities between September 18, 2017, and February 1, 2021. Patient demographics were retrieved from electronic medical records, cancer outcomes determined through regional tumor registry linkage, and comparisons made across risk models using Wilcoxon and Pearson χ2 2-sided tests. Deep learning, Tyrer-Cuzick, and National Cancer Institute Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (NCI BCRAT) risk models were compared with respect to performance metrics and area under the receiver operating characteristic curves.

RESULTS

Cancers detected per thousand patients screened were higher in patients at increased risk by the deep learning model (8.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 7.9 to 9.4) compared with Tyrer-Cuzick (4.4, 95% CI = 3.9 to 4.9) and NCI BCRAT (3.8, 95% CI = 3.3 to 4.3) models (P &lt; .001). Area under the receiver operating characteristic curves of the deep learning model (0.68, 95% CI = 0.66 to 0.70) was higher compared with Tyrer-Cuzick (0.57, 95% CI = 0.54 to 0.60) and NCI BCRAT (0.57, 95% CI = 0.54 to 0.60) models. Simulated screening of the top 50th percentile risk by the deep learning model captured statistically significantly more patients with cancer compared with Tyrer-Cuzick and NCI BCRAT models (P &lt; .001).

CONCLUSIONS

A deep learning model to assess breast cancer risk can support feasible and effective risk-based screening and is superior to traditional models to identify patients destined to develop cancer in large screening cohorts.

Association Between Surgery Preference and Receipt in Ductal Carcinoma In Situ After Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging: An Ancillary Study of the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group (E4112)

Importance

Guiding treatment decisions for women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) requires understanding patient preferences and the influence of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and surgeon recommendation.

Objective

To identify factors associated with surgery preference and surgery receipt among a prospective cohort of women with newly diagnosed DCIS.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A prospective cohort study was conducted at 75 participating institutions, including community practices and academic centers, across the US between March 25, 2015, and April 27, 2016. Data were analyzed from August 2 to September 24, 2021. This was an ancillary study of the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group (E4112). Women with recently diagnosed unilateral DCIS who were eligible for wide local excision and had a diagnostic mammogram within 3 months of study registration were included. Participants who had documented surgery and completed the baseline patient-reported outcome questionnaires were included in this substudy.

Exposures

Women received preoperative MRI and surgeon consultation and then underwent wide local excision or mastectomy. Participants will be followed up for recurrence and overall survival for 10 years from the date of surgery.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Patient-reported outcome questionnaires assessed treatment goals and concerns and surgery preference before MRI and after MRI and surgeon consultation.

Results

Of the 368 participants enrolled 316 (86%) were included in this substudy (median [range] age, 59.5 [34-87] years; 45 women [14%] were Black; 245 [78%] were White; and 26 [8%] were of other race). Pre-MRI, age (odds ratio [OR] per 5-year increment, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.26-0.80; P = .007) and the importance of keeping one's breast (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.31-0.72; P < .001) vs removal of the breast for peace of mind (OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.04-1.76; P = .03) were associated with surgery preference for mastectomy. After MRI and surgeon consultation, MRI upstaging (48 of 316 [15%]) was associated with patient preference for mastectomy (OR, 8.09; 95% CI, 2.51-26.06; P < .001). The 2 variables with the highest ORs for initial receipt of mastectomy were MRI upstaging (OR, 12.08; 95% CI, 4.34-33.61; P < .001) and surgeon recommendation (OR, 4.85; 95% CI, 1.99-11.83; P < .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study, change in patient preference for DCIS surgery and surgery received were responsive to MRI results and surgeon recommendation. These data highlight the importance of ensuring adequate information and ongoing communication about the clinical significance of MRI findings and the benefits and risks of available treatment options.

Abstract P3-13-01: Association of polygenic risk score with 2 year risk of poor prognosis breast cancer

Introduction: Mammography reduces breast cancer mortality, however, there is controversy surrounding when and how often women should undergo mammography screening. Knowledge of short-term risk of developing breast cancer, particularly poor prognosis breast cancer, would help direct more intensive screening to those at highest risk. Polygenic risk scores (PRS) are emerging as a powerful tool to predict breast cancer risk, however, few studies have evaluated the associations of breast cancer PRS with short-term risk or with risk of poor prognosis breast cancers specifically. Methods: Using a mammography screening cohort at Massachusetts General Hospital, we identified women who had a negative mammogram (BI-RADS assessment 1 or 2) from 2006 to 2015. We linked the cohort to a research biobank to obtain genetic information. In addition, we recruited 205 patients who developed breast cancer within 2 years of a negative mammogram to provide a DNA sample. Women with a prior history of breast cancer, with breast implants, and who were not residents of Massachusetts were excluded. Samples were genotyped using the Illumina Multi-Ethnic GWAS/Exome SNP (MEGA) array. Genotypes were imputed using TOPMed (Version r2 2020). Patients whose saliva DNA samples had low concentration or that failed quality control procedures were excluded. Ancestry specific principal components were generated and used as a covariate. We generated the 313-SNP breast cancer PRS, the estrogen receptor positive (ER+) PRS and the estrogen receptor negative (ER-) PRS using established methods. (PMID: 30554720) Breast cancers were defined as poor prognosis if they were metastatic, had positive lymph nodes, were ER/PR+HER2- and &gt 2cm or ER/PR/HER2- or HER2+ and &gt 1cm. (PMID: 33169794) Logistic regression was used to estimate the odds ratios for standardized PRS measures, adjusted for age, breast density, race/ethnicity, year of screening, and ancestry principal components. Results: After exclusions, 308 breast cancers and 3329 non-cases were analyzed. Of the breast cancers, 86% were ER/PR+ (264/308) and 14% were ER/PR- (42/308), and 137 (44%) were poor prognosis. The majority of patients were non-Hispanic White (87%) and the mean age was 57 years and was similar for cancers and non-cancers. Cancer cases were more likely than non-cases to have higher breast density and a family history of breast cancer. First, we examined the overall breast cancer PRS, and found the PRS was significantly associated with breast cancer diagnosed within two years of a negative mammogram (OR=1.39, 95% CI 1.23-1.57, p &lt 0.001). The PRS was also significantly associated specifically with diagnosis of poor prognosis disease (OR=1.21, 95% CI 1.01-1.45, p=0.037). In addition, the ER+ PRS was significantly associated with ER/PR+ breast cancer (OR=1.41, 95% CI 1.24-1.61, p &lt 0.001), and the ER- PRS was significantly associated with ER- breast cancer (OR=1.48, 95% CI 1.08-2.02, p=0.015). Conclusion: Even after adjusting for breast density and other risk factors, breast cancer PRS was significantly associated with diagnosis of both breast cancer overall and poor prognosis breast cancer within two years of a negative mammogram. Furthermore, the subtype specific PRS were significantly associated with short-term risk of ER+ and ER- disease. These results suggest that PRS may be useful in guiding decisions about screening interval and supplemental screening, given the association of PRS with risk of poor prognosis disease in the short term.

Table 1.Logistic Regression of PRS and cancer diagnosis within 2 years of a negative mammogramOR95% CIp-valueAll Cancers (N=308), Overall PRS1.391.23-1.571.78x10-7Poor prognosis (N=147), Overall PRS1.211.01-1.450.037ER+ cancers (N=264), ER+ PRS1.421.24-1.621.87x10-7ER- cancers (N=42), ER- PRS1.521.11-2.090.008

Citation Format: Anne Marie McCarthy, Alisa K. Manning, Sarah Hsu, Beverly Moy, Constance D. Lehman, Katrina Armstrong. Association of polygenic risk score with 2 year risk of poor prognosis breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2021 Dec 7-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P3-13-01.

Are English-language online patient education materials related to breast cancer risk assessment understandable, readable, and actionable?

PURPOSE

To evaluate the readability, understandability, and actionability of online patient education materials (OPEM) related to breast cancer risk assessment.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We queried seven English-language search terms related to breast cancer risk assessment: breast cancer high-risk, breast cancer risk factors, breast cancer family history, BRCA, breast cancer risk assessment, Tyrer-Cuzick, and Gail model. Websites were categorized as: academic/hospital-based, commercial, government, non-profit or academic based on the organization hosting the site. Grade-level readability of qualifying websites and categories was determined using readability metrics and generalized estimating equations based on written content only. Readability scores were compared to the recommended parameters set by the American Medical Association (AMA). Understandability and actionability of OPEM related to breast cancer high-risk were evaluated using the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) and compared to criteria set at ≥70%. Descriptive statistics and inter-rater reliability analysis were utilized.

RESULTS

343 websites were identified, of which 162 met study inclusion criteria. The average grade readability score was 12.1 across all websites (range 10.8-13.4). No website met the AMA recommendation. Commercial websites demonstrated the highest overall average readability of 13.1. Of the 26 websites related to the search term breast cancer high-risk, the average understandability and actionability scores were 62% and 34% respectively, both below criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

OPEM on breast cancer risk assessment available to the general public do not meet criteria for readability, understandability, or actionability. To ensure patient comprehension of medical information online, future information should be published in simpler, more appropriate terms.

Impact of a Same-Day Breast Biopsy Program on Disparities in Time to Biopsy for Patients With Serious Mental Illness

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to investigate disparities in time between breast biopsy recommendation and completion and the impact of a same-day biopsy (SDB) program for patients with serious mental illness (SMI), with a focus on more vulnerable individuals with public payer insurance.

METHODS

In August 2017, the authors' academic breast imaging center started routinely offering needle biopsies on the day of recommendation. Primary outcomes were the proportion of biopsies performed as SDBs and days from biopsy recommendation to completion over a 2.5-year pre- versus postintervention period, comparing all patients with SMI versus those without, and public payer-insured patients <65 years of age with SMI (SMI-PP) versus without SMI (non-SMI-PP). Multivariable proportional odds and logistic regression models were fit to assess association of SMI status, age, race/ethnicity, language, and insurance with days to biopsy and SDB within each period.

RESULTS

There were 2,026 biopsies preintervention and 2,361 biopsies postintervention. Preintervention, 8.43% of patients with SMI (7 of 83) underwent SDB compared with 15.59% of those without SMI (303 of 1,943) (P = .076), and 2.7% of the SMI-PP subgroup (1 of 37) underwent SDB compared with 15.88% of the non-SMI-PP subgroup (47 of 296) (P = .031). Adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, and language, disparities persisted in odds for undergoing SDB (adjusted odds ratio, 0.13; 95% confidence interval, 0.02-0.92; P = .04) and having longer days to biopsy (adjusted odds ratio, 2.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.26-4.37; P = .01) for the SMI-PP subgroup compared with the non-SMI-PP subgroup in the preintervention period. There was no evidence of these disparities postintervention for the SMI-PP subgroup. SDB proportion increased from 15.3% (310 of 2,026) to 36.09% (852 of 2,361) (P < .001) across all patients.

CONCLUSIONS

A same-day breast biopsy program mitigates disparities in time to biopsy for patients with SMI and helps improve breast cancer care equity for this vulnerable population.

AUR-RRA Review: Logistics of Academic-Industry Partnerships in Artificial Intelligence

The Radiology Research Alliance (RRA) of the Association of University Radiologists (AUR) convenes Task Forces to address current topics in radiology. In this article, the AUR-RRA Task Force on Academic-Industry Partnerships for Artificial Intelligence, considered issues of importance to academic radiology departments contemplating industry partnerships in artificial intelligence (AI) development, testing and evaluation. Our goal was to create a framework encompassing the domains of clinical, technical, regulatory, legal and financial considerations that impact the arrangement and success of such partnerships.

Imaging Evaluation of the Axilla-A National Survey of Clinical Practice Among Radiologists

OBJECTIVE

To assess awareness and implementation of the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z0011 trial findings, approaches to axillary nodal imaging, and to identify differences in practice based on respondent characteristics.

METHODS

An online survey was distributed to members of the Society of Breast Imaging. Questions regarded demographics, evaluation approaches, and impact of the Z0011 trial. Poisson regression with robust standard errors to regression was used to generate multivariable-adjusted relative risks and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for associations.

RESULTS

The response rate was 21.7% (430/2007). The majority (295/430, 68.6%) reported always performing axillary US in patients with a BI-RADS 4B, 4C, or 5 breast mass. Most respondents (299/430, 69.5%) were familiar with the findings of the Z0011 trial. Radiologists in academic practice were 0.67 (95% CI: 0.54-0.83) times less likely than private practice radiologists to perform axillary US in all masses and 1.31 (95% CI: 1.13-1.52) times more likely to be very familiar with the trial. Frequency of axillary US showed no association with time spent in breast imaging, years in practice, or presence of dedicated breast surgeons. Increased time in breast imaging and presence of dedicated breast surgeons was strongly associated with familiarity with the trial. No association was observed with years in practice. Most respondents (291/430, 67.7%) made little or no change to their practice based on trial findings.

CONCLUSION

There is wide variability in approaches to axillary nodal evaluation, demonstrating a need for improved education and guidelines for axillary imaging in breast cancer patients.

Multi-Institutional Validation of a Mammography-Based Breast Cancer Risk Model

PURPOSE

Accurate risk assessment is essential for the success of population screening programs in breast cancer. Models with high sensitivity and specificity would enable programs to target more elaborate screening efforts to high-risk populations, while minimizing overtreatment for the rest. Artificial intelligence (AI)-based risk models have demonstrated a significant advance over risk models used today in clinical practice. However, the responsible deployment of novel AI requires careful validation across diverse populations. To this end, we validate our AI-based model, Mirai, across globally diverse screening populations.

METHODS

We collected screening mammograms and pathology-confirmed breast cancer outcomes from Massachusetts General Hospital, USA; Novant, USA; Emory, USA; Maccabi-Assuta, Israel; Karolinska, Sweden; Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taiwan; and Barretos, Brazil. We evaluated Uno's concordance-index for Mirai in predicting risk of breast cancer at one to five years from the mammogram.

RESULTS

A total of 128,793 mammograms from 62,185 patients were collected across the seven sites, of which 3,815 were followed by a cancer diagnosis within 5 years. Mirai obtained concordance indices of 0.75 (95% CI, 0.72 to 0.78), 0.75 (95% CI, 0.70 to 0.80), 0.77 (95% CI, 0.75 to 0.79), 0.77 (95% CI, 0.73 to 0.81), 0.81 (95% CI, 0.79 to 0.82), 0.79 (95% CI, 0.76 to 0.83), and 0.84 (95% CI, 0.81 to 0.88) at Massachusetts General Hospital, Novant, Emory, Maccabi-Assuta, Karolinska, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, and Barretos, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Mirai, a mammography-based risk model, maintained its accuracy across globally diverse test sets from seven hospitals across five countries. This is the broadest validation to date of an AI-based breast cancer model and suggests that the technology can offer broad and equitable improvements in care.

Breast MRI during Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: Lack of Background Parenchymal Enhancement Suppression and Inferior Treatment Response

Background Suppression of background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) is commonly observed after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) at contrast-enhanced breast MRI. It was hypothesized that nonsuppressed BPE may be associated with inferior response to NAC. Purpose To investigate the relationship between lack of BPE suppression and pathologic response. Materials and Methods A retrospective review was performed for women with menopausal status data who were treated for breast cancer by one of 10 drug arms (standard NAC with or without experimental agents) between May 2010 and November 2016 in the Investigation of Serial Studies to Predict Your Therapeutic Response with Imaging and Molecular Analysis 2, or I-SPY 2 TRIAL (NCT01042379). Patients underwent MRI at four points: before treatment (T0), early treatment (T1), interregimen (T2), and before surgery (T3). BPE was quantitatively measured by using automated fibroglandular tissue segmentation. To test the hypothesis effectively, a subset of examinations with BPE with high-quality segmentation was selected. BPE change from T0 was defined as suppressed or nonsuppressed for each point. The Fisher exact test and the Z tests of proportions with Yates continuity correction were used to examine the relationship between BPE suppression and pathologic complete response (pCR) in hormone receptor (HR)-positive and HR-negative cohorts. Results A total of 3528 MRI scans from 882 patients (mean age, 48 years ± 10 [standard deviation]) were reviewed and the subset of patients with high-quality BPE segmentation was determined (T1, 433 patients; T2, 396 patients; T3, 380 patients). In the HR-positive cohort, an association between lack of BPE suppression and lower pCR rate was detected at T2 (nonsuppressed vs suppressed, 11.8% [six of 51] vs 28.9% [50 of 173]; difference, 17.1% [95% CI: 4.7, 29.5]; P = .02) and T3 (nonsuppressed vs suppressed, 5.3% [two of 38] vs 27.4% [48 of 175]; difference, 22.2% [95% CI: 10.9, 33.5]; P = .003). In the HR-negative cohort, patients with nonsuppressed BPE had lower estimated pCR rate at all points, but the P values for the association were all greater than .05. Conclusions In hormone receptor-positive breast cancer, lack of background parenchymal enhancement suppression may indicate inferior treatment response. © RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Philpotts in this issue.

Patient-Reported Testing Burden of Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging Among Women With Ductal Carcinoma In Situ: An Ancillary Study of the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group (E4112)

IMPORTANCE

The use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in pretreatment planning of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) remains controversial. Understanding changes in short-term health-related quality of life associated with breast MRI would allow for a more complete comparative effectiveness assessment.

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether there are changes in patient-reported quality of life associated with breast MRI among women diagnosed with DCIS.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study was a substudy of a nonrandomized clinical trial conducted at 75 participating US institutions from March 2015 to April 2016. Women recently diagnosed with unilateral DCIS who were eligible for wide local excision and had a diagnostic mammogram within 3 months of study registration were included. A total of 355 women met the eligibility criteria and underwent the study MRI. Data analysis was performed from June 3, 2020, to July 1, 2021.

EXPOSURES

Participants underwent bilateral breast MRI within 30 days of study registration and before surgery. Information on patient-reported testing burden for breast MRI was collected after MRI and before surgery.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome of this substudy was the patient-reported testing burden of breast MRI, measured by the Testing Morbidities Index (TMI) summated scale score. The TMI is a 7-item instrument that evaluates the temporary changes in quality of life associated with imaging before, during, and after the test (0 represents the worst possible, 100 the hypothetical ideal test experience).

RESULTS

Of the 355 women who met the eligibility criteria, 244 (69%) completed both questionnaires and were included in this analysis. The median age was 59 years (range, 34-85 years). The mean MRI TMI summated scale score was 85.9 (95% CI, 84.6-87.3). Of the 244 women, 142 (58%) experienced at least some fear and anxiety before the examination, and 120 women (49%) experienced fear and anxiety during the examination. A total of 156 women (64%) experienced pain or discomfort during the examination. In multivariable analyses, greater test-related burden was associated with higher levels of cancer worry (regression coefficient, -2.75; SE, 0.94; P = .004).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cohort study, a clinically meaningful breast MRI testing burden among women with DCIS was revealed that was significantly associated with cancer worry. Understanding the potential quality-of-life reduction associated with MRI, especially when used in combination with mammography, may allow development of targeted interventions to improve the patient experience.

Multilevel Follow-up of Cancer Screening (mFOCUS): Protocol for a multilevel intervention to improve the follow-up of abnormal cancer screening test results

INTRODUCTION

While substantial attention is focused on the delivery of routine preventive cancer screening, less attention has been paid to systematically ensuring that there is timely follow-up of abnormal screening test results. Barriers to completion of timely follow-up occur at the patient, provider, care team and system levels.

METHODS

In this pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial, primary care sites in three networks are randomized to one of four arms: (1) standard care, (2) "visit-based" reminders that appear in a patient's electronic health record (EHR) when it is accessed by either patient or providers (3) visit based reminders with population health outreach, and (4) visit based reminders, population health outreach, and patient navigation with systematic screening and referral to address social barriers to care. Eligible patients in participating practices are those overdue for follow-up of an abnormal results on breast, cervical, colorectal and lung cancer screening tests.

RESULTS

The primary outcome is whether an individual receives follow-up, specific to the organ type and screening abnormality, within 120 days of becoming eligible for the trial. Secondary outcomes assess the effect of intervention components on the patient and provider experience of obtaining follow-up care and the delivery of the intervention components.

CONCLUSIONS

This trial will provide evidence for the role of a multilevel intervention on improving the follow-up of abnormal cancer screening test results. We will also specifically assess the relative impact of the components of the intervention, compared to standard care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03979495.

Preoperative Breast MRI for Newly Diagnosed Ductal Carcinoma in Situ: Imaging Features and Performance in a Multicenter Setting (ECOG-ACRIN E4112 Trial)

Background There are limited data from clinical trials describing preoperative MRI features and performance in the evaluation of mammographically detected ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Purpose To report qualitative MRI features of DCIS, MRI performance in the identification of additional disease, and associations of imaging features with pathologic, genomic, and surgical outcomes from the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group-American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ECOG-ACRIN) E4112 trial. Materials and Methods Secondary analyses of a multicenter prospective clinical trial from the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group included women with DCIS diagnosed with conventional imaging techniques (mammography and US), confirmed via core-needle biopsy (CNB), and enrolled between March 2015 and April 2016 who were candidates for wide local excision (WLE) based on conventional imaging and clinical examination results. DCIS MRI features and pathologic features from CNB and excision were recorded. Each woman without invasive upgrade of the index DCIS at WLE received a 12-gene DCIS score. MRI performance metrics were calculated. Associations of imaging features with invasive upgrade, dichotomized DCIS score (<39 vs ≥39), and single WLE success were estimated in uni- and multivariable analyses. Results Among 339 women (median age, 60 years; interquartile range, 51-66 years), most DCIS cases showed nonmass enhancement (NME) (195 of 339 [58%]) on MRI scans with larger median size than on mammograms (19 mm vs 12 mm; P < .001). Positive predictive value of MRI-prompted CNBs was 32% (21 of 66) (95% CI: 22, 44), yielding an additional cancer detection rate of 6.2% (21 of 339) (95% CI: 4.1, 9.3). MRI false-positive rate was 14.2% (45 of 318) (95% CI: 10.7, 18.4). No imaging features were associated with invasive upgrade or DCIS score (P = .05 to P = .95). Smaller size and focal NME distribution at MRI were linked to single WLE success (P < .001). Conclusion Preoperative MRI depicted ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) diagnosed with conventional imaging most commonly as nonmass enhancement, with larger median span than mammography, and additional cancer detection rate of 6.2%. MRI features of this subset of DCIS did not enable prediction of pathologic or genomic outcomes. Clinical trial registration no. NCT02352883 © RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Kuhl in this issue.

Unilateral Lymphadenopathy After COVID-19 Vaccination: A Practical Management Plan for Radiologists Across Specialties

Reports are rising of patients with unilateral axillary lymphadenopathy, visible on diverse imaging examinations, after recent coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination. With less than 10% of the US population fully vaccinated, we can prepare now for informed care of patients imaged after recent vaccination. The authors recommend documenting vaccination information (date[s] of vaccination[s], injection site [left or right, arm or thigh], type of vaccine) on intake forms and having this information available to the radiologist at the time of examination interpretation. These recommendations are based on three key factors: the timing and location of the vaccine injection, clinical context, and imaging findings. The authors report isolated unilateral axillary lymphadenopathy (i.e., no imaging findings outside of visible lymphadenopathy), which is ipsilateral to recent (prior 6 weeks) vaccination, as benign with no further imaging indicated. Clinical management is recommended, with ultrasound if clinical concern persists 6 weeks after the final vaccination dose. In the clinical setting to stage a recent cancer diagnosis or assess response to therapy, the authors encourage prompt recommended imaging and vaccination (possibly in the thigh or contralateral arm according to the location of the known cancer). Management in this clinical context of a current cancer diagnosis is tailored to the specific case, ideally with consultation between the oncology treatment team and the radiologist. The aim of these recommendations is to (1) reduce patient anxiety, provider burden, and costs of unnecessary evaluation of enlarged nodes in the setting of recent vaccination and (2) avoid further delays in vaccinations and recommended imaging for best patient care during the pandemic.

Risk factors for an advanced breast cancer diagnosis within 2 years of a negative mammogram

BACKGROUND

Identifying women at risk for advanced interval cancers would allow better targeting of mammography and supplemental screening. The authors assessed risk factors for advanced breast cancer within 2 years of a negative mammogram.

METHODS

The authors included 293,520 negative mammograms performed from 2006 to 2015 among 74,736 women. Breast cancers were defined as advanced if they were >2 cm, were >1 cm and triple-negative or human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive, had positive lymph nodes, or were metastatic. Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to evaluate associations of age, breast density, menopause, mammogram type, prior breast biopsy, body mass index (BMI), and a family history of breast cancer with a cancer diagnosis within 2 years of a negative mammogram. Models were stratified by year since a negative mammogram.

RESULTS

Among 1345 breast cancers, 357 were advanced (26.5%), and 988 (73.5%) were at an early stage. Breast density, prior biopsy, and family history were associated with an increased risk of both advanced and early-stage cancers. Overweight and obese women had a 40% higher risk of early-stage cancer only in year 2 (overweight hazard ratio [HR], 1.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.19-1.67; P < .001; obese HR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.17-1.70; P < .001). Obese women had a 90% increased risk of advanced cancer in year 1 (HR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.14-3.18; P = .014), and both overweight and obese women had a 40% or greater increased risk in year 2 (overweight HR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.14-2.07; P = .005; obese HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.00-2.01; P = .051).

CONCLUSIONS

A higher BMI was associated with an advanced breast cancer diagnosis within 2 years of a negative mammogram. These results have important implications for risk assessment, screening intervals, and use of supplemental screening.

External Validation of a Deep Learning Model for Predicting Mammographic Breast Density in Routine Clinical Practice

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Federal legislation requires patient notification of dense mammographic breast tissue because increased density is a marker of breast cancer risk and can limit the sensitivity of mammography. As previously described, we clinically implemented our deep learning model at the academic breast imaging practice where the model was developed with high clinical acceptance. Our objective was to externally validate our deep learning model on radiologist breast density assessments in a community breast imaging practice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Our deep learning model was implemented at a dedicated breast imaging practice staffed by both academic and community breast imaging radiologists in October 2018. Deep learning model assessment of mammographic breast density was presented to the radiologist during routine clinical practice at the time of mammogram interpretation. We identified 2174 consecutive screening mammograms after implementation of the deep learning model. Radiologist agreement with the model's assessment was measured and compared across radiologist groups.

RESULTS

Both academic and community radiologists had high clinical acceptance of the deep learning model's density prediction, with 94.9% (academic) and 90.7% (community) acceptance for dense versus nondense categories (p < 0.001). The proportion of mammograms assessed as dense by all radiologists decreased from 47.0% before deep learning model implementation to 41.0% after deep learning model implementation (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Our deep learning model had a high clinical acceptance rate among both academic and community radiologists and reduced the proportion of mammograms assessed as dense. This is an important step to validating our deep learning model prior to potential widespread implementation.

Leveraging Emergency Department Encounters to Improve Cancer Screening Adherence

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to estimate the proportion of patients visiting the emergency department (ED) who were not up to date with cancer screening guidelines to assess the scope of need and potential impact of ED-based cancer screening interventions.

METHODS

Adult participants from the 2015 National Health Interview Survey were included. Among patients nonadherent to national breast, colorectal, or lung cancer screening guidelines, the proportion of patients reporting an ED visit within the last year was estimated, accounting for complex survey sampling design features. Multiple variable logistic regression analyses were then conducted to evaluate the association between sociodemographic characteristics and screening adherence.

RESULTS

Of screening eligible respondents, 17.2% of women nonadherent to mammography screening, 16.9% of patients nonadherent to colorectal cancer screening, and 25.0% of patients nonadherent to lung cancer screening reported at least one ED visit in the preceding year. Patients visiting the ED with postsecondary school education were more likely to be up to date with mammography screening than those without advanced education (odds ratio [OR] 1.45; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.21-1.74; P = .01). Patients without insurance were less likely than those with insurance to report being up to date with both mammography screening (OR 0.31; 95% CI: 0.21-0.48; P = .01) and colorectal cancer screening (OR 0.56; 95% CI: 0.34-0.93; P = .03).

DISCUSSION

Opportunities to improve cancer screening adherence exist through ED-based preventative care interventions, which leverage multidisciplinary partnerships, including radiologists, to reach large volumes of patients who are not engaged in cancer screening.

Opportunities for Radiology Trainee Education Amid the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons From an Academic Breast Imaging Program

The COVID-19 pandemic required restructuring of Radiology trainee education across US institutions. While reduced clinical imaging volume and mandates to maintain physical distancing presented new challenges to traditional medical education during this period, new opportunities developed to support our division in providing high-quality training for residents and fellows. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Core Competencies for Diagnostic Radiology helped guide division leadership in restructuring and reframing breast imaging education during this time of drastic change and persistent uncertainty. Here, we reflect on the educational challenges and opportunities faced by our academic breast imaging division during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic across each of the ACGME Core Competencies. We also discuss how systems and processes developed out of necessity during the first peak of the pandemic may continue to support radiology training during phased reopening and beyond.

Imaging Surveillance of Breast Cancer Survivors with Digital Mammography versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis

Background Among breast cancer survivors, detecting a breast cancer when it is asymptomatic (rather than symptomatic) improves survival; thus, imaging surveillance in these patients is warranted. Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is used for screening, but data on DBT for surveillance in this high-risk population are limited. Purpose To determine whether DBT leads to improved screening performance metrics when compared with two-dimensional digital mammography among breast cancer survivors. Materials and Methods In this study, screening mammograms obtained in breast cancer survivors before and after DBT implementation were retrospectively reviewed (March 2008-February 2011 for the digital mammography group; January 2013-December 2017 for the DBT group). Mammograms were interpreted by breast imaging radiologists with the assistance of computer-aided detection. Performance metrics and tumor characteristics between the groups were compared using multivariable logistic regression models. Results The digital mammography and DBT groups were composed of 9019 and 22 887 mammographic examinations, respectively, in 8170 women (mean age, 62 years ± 12 [standard deviation]). In the DBT group, the abnormal interpretation rate was lower (5.8% [1331 of 22 887 examinations] vs 6.2% [563 of 9019 examinations]; odds ratio [OR], 0.80; 95% CI: 0.71, 0.91; P = .001) and specificity was higher (95.0% [21 502 of 22 644 examinations] vs 94.7% [8424 of 8891 examinations]; OR, 1.23; 95% CI: 1.07, 1.41; P = .003) than in the digital mammography group. The cancer detection rates did not differ (8.3 per 1000 examinations with DBT vs 10.6 with digital mammography; OR, 0.76; 95% CI: 0.57, 1.02; P = .07). The proportions of screening-detected invasive cancers, versus in situ cancers, were similar (74% [140 of 189 cancers] in the DBT group vs 72% [69 of 96 cancers] in the digital mammography group; P = .69). Of 86 interval cancers, 58% (50 of 86 cancers) manifested with symptoms, and 33% (28 of 86 cancers) were detected at screening MRI. Conclusion Among breast cancer survivors, screening with digital breast tomosynthesis led to fewer false-positive results and higher specificity but did not affect cancer detection. © RSNA, 2020 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Hooley and Butler in this issue.

Screening for Breast Cancer

Among women, breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer and the leading cause of cancer-related death in the world. The purpose of this article is to review the evidence regarding breast cancer screening for average-risk women. The review primarily focuses on mammographic screening but also reviews clinical breast examinations, emerging screening technologies, and opportunities to build consensus. Wherever possible, the review relies on published systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and guidelines from three major societies (US Preventive Services Task Force, American College of Radiology, and the American Cancer Society) to reflect a range of evidence-based perspectives regarding mammographic screening.

Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS) at Breast MRI: Predictors of Upgrade to Invasive Carcinoma

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

To determine the upgrade rate of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-detected ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and to identify patient, imaging, and pathologic features that may predict the risk of upgrade.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Medical chart review from January 2007 to December 2016 identified 60 patients with 61 cases of MRI-detected DCIS and negative mammographic evaluations within 1 year prior to the MRI. Imaging and pathology reports were reviewed. Standard statistical tests, including Student's t-tests and chi-square tests, were used to compare patient, imaging, and pathologic features between the cases of DCIS that did and did not upgrade to invasive carcinoma at surgery.

RESULTS

Over a 10-year period, 60 patients (mean age 52 years, range 30-76 years) were diagnosed with 61 cases of MRI-detected DCIS. Two-thirds of DCIS cases were detected on MRI examinations that were performed for purposes of high-risk screening (67.2%, 41/61). MRI features that led to the DCIS diagnosis were nonmass enhancement in 78.7% (48/61), enhancing mass in 16.4% (10/61), nonmass enhancement and enhancing mass in 3.3% (2/61), and enhancing focus in 1.6% (1/61). Thirteen cases (21.3%, 13/61) were upgraded to invasive ductal carcinoma at surgery. DCIS cases that upgraded were larger on MRI (40 mm vs 17 mm, p < 0.01) and more likely to be associated with comedonecrosis at biopsy (38.5% [5/13] vs 6.3% [3/48], p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

The upgrade rate of MRI-detected DCIS to invasive ductal carcinoma at surgery is 21.3%. Features that are associated with upgrade include large size on MRI and the presence of comedonecrosis at biopsy.

The Adoption and Impact on Performance of an Automated Outcomes Feedback Application for Tomosynthesis Screening Mammography

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate a tomosynthesis screening mammography automated outcomes feedback application's adoption and impact on performance.

METHODS

This prospective intervention study evaluated a feedback application that provided mammographers subsequent imaging and pathology results for patients that radiologists had personally recalled from screening. Deployed to 13 academic and 5 private practice attending radiologists, adoption was studied from March 29, 2018, to March 20, 2019. Radiologists indicated if reviewed feedback would influence future clinical decisions. For a subset of eight academic radiologists consistently interpreting screening mammograms during the study, performance metrics were compared pre-intervention (January 1, 2016, to September 30, 2017) and post-intervention (October 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018). Abnormal interpretation rate, positive predictive value of biopsies performed, sensitivity, specificity, and cancer detection rate were compared using Pearson's χ² test. Logistic regression models were fit, adjusting for age, race, breast density, prior comparison, breast cancer history, and radiologist.

RESULTS

The 18 radiologists reviewed 68.5% (1,398 of 2,042) of available feedback cases and indicated that 17.4% of cases (243 of 1,398) could influence future decisions. For the eight academic radiologist subset, after multivariable adjustment with comparison to pre-intervention, average abnormal interpretation rate decreased (from 7.5% to 6.7%, adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.86, P < .01), positive predictive value of biopsies performed increased (from 40.6% to 51.3%, aOR 1.48, P = .011), and specificity increased (from 93.0% to 93.9%, aOR 1.17, P < .01) post-intervention. There was no difference in cancer detection rate per 1,000 examinations (from 5.8 to 6.1, aOR 1.01, P = .91) or sensitivity (from 81.2% to 78.7%, aOR 0.84, P = .47).

CONCLUSIONS

Radiologists used a screening mammography automated outcomes feedback application. Its use decreased false-positive examinations, without evidence of reduced cancer detection.

Do Eligibility Criteria for Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS) Active Surveillance Trials Identify Patients at Low Risk for Upgrade to Invasive Carcinoma?

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials are currently ongoing to determine the safety and efficacy of active surveillance (AS) versus usual care (surgical and radiation treatment) for women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). This study aimed to determine upgrade rates of DCIS at needle biopsy to invasive carcinoma at surgery among women who meet the eligibility criteria for AS trials.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed of consecutive women at an academic medical center with a diagnosis of DCIS at needle biopsy from 2007 to 2016. Medical records were reviewed for mode of presentation, imaging findings, biopsy pathology results, and surgical outcomes. Each patient with DCIS was evaluated for AS trial eligibility based on published criteria for the COMET, LORD, and LORIS trials.

RESULTS

During a 10-year period, DCIS was diagnosed in 858 women (mean age 58 years; range 28-89 years). Of the 858 women, 498 (58%) were eligible for the COMET trial, 101 (11.8%) for the LORD trial, and 343 (40%) for the LORIS trial. The rates of upgrade to invasive carcinoma were 12% (60/498) for the COMET trial, 5% (5/101) for the LORD trial, and 11.1% (38/343) for the LORIS trial. The invasive carcinomas ranged from 0.2 to 20 mm, and all were node-negative.

CONCLUSIONS

Women who meet the eligibility criteria for DCIS AS trials remain at risk for occult invasive carcinoma at presentation, with upgrade rates ranging from 5 to 12%. These findings suggest that more precise criteria are needed to ensure that women with invasive carcinoma are excluded from AS trials.

Impact of Background Parenchymal Enhancement on Diagnostic Performance in Screening Breast MRI

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the impact of background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) on diagnostic performance in screening breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Consecutive screening breast MRIs performed at our institution from 2011 to 2014 were reviewed in a HIPAA-compliant manner with institutional review board approval. BPE was extracted from radiology reports and examinations grouped into minimal/mild (lower) or moderate/marked (higher) BPE. Performance measures were compared between the two groups with Pearson's χ2 test and with logistic regression to adjust for possible confounders of age, screening indication, mammographic density, available prior MRI, and examination year, using lower BPE as the reference group.

RESULTS

For 4686 screening MRIs performed in 2446 women, BPE was reported as minimal or mild for 3975 (85%) examinations and moderate or marked for 711(15%). Following logistic regression to adjust for multiple confounders, abnormal interpretation rate (AIR) significantly differed between the two BPE groups. AIR was 13% (89/711) in the higher BPE group versus 7% (295/3975) in the lower BPE group with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.37 (95% confidence interval: 1.03, 1.82). After adjustment, all other performance metrics, including cancer detection rate, positive predictive value, sensitivity, and specificity did not significantly differ between the two BPE groups (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Higher BPE on screening MRI is associated with higher abnormal interpretation rate, with no impact on cancer detection rate, sensitivity, or specificity.

Kinetic Analysis of Lesions Identified on a Rapid Abridged Multiphase (RAMP) Breast MRI Protocol

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

We implemented a rapid abridged multiphase (RAMP) breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) protocol to reduce scan time and increase workflow efficiency. In this study, we compared delayed-phase kinetic analyses of benign and malignant lesions on the RAMP protocol versus a full dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI protocol.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Consecutive breast MRI examinations obtained from October 2015 to August 2016 with tissue diagnoses of suspicious MRI lesions were identified. RAMP MRI included one precontrast and two postcontrast phases. Full DCE MRI included one precontrast and at least three postcontrast phases. Lesion kinetic analyses including mean delayed-phase volume percentage of washout, predominant curve type, and worst curve type were assessed. Kinetic analyses assessed on RAMP and DCE MRI protocols were compared using Wilcoxon rank-sum test and Chi-Square test. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was performed to discriminate benign and malignant lesions based on delayed-phase parameters.

RESULTS

The study included 177 consecutive breast lesions (50 benign, 127 malignant) in 162 women. RAMP MRI (23 benign, 61 malignant) and DCE MRI examinations (27 benign, 66 malignant) demonstrated 8.4% vs 9.3% washout (p = 0.36) for benign lesions and 18.5% vs 17% washout (p = 0.66) for malignancies, respectively. There was no difference in the predominant and worst curve types for malignant and benign lesions or in area under the receiver operating characteristic curves for delayed-phased parameters between the two protocols (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Lesion kinetic analyses from the RAMP MRI protocol can achieve the same discriminatory ability as the full DCE protocol. By reducing scan time, the RAMP MRI protocol improves patient comfort and enhances workflow efficiency and can be easily implemented in any clinical setting.

Breast Cancer Screening with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Are Initial Benefits Sustained?

Background Performance metrics with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) are based on early experiences. There is limited research on whether the benefits of DBT are sustained. Purpose To determine whether improved screening performance metrics with DBT are sustained over time at the population level and after the first screening round at the individual level. Materials and Methods A retrospective review was conducted of screening mammograms that had been obtained before DBT implementation (March 2008 to February 2011, two-dimensional digital mammography [DM] group) and for 5 years after implementation (January 2013 to December 2017, DBT1-DBT5 groups, respectively). Patients who underwent DBT were also categorized according to the number of previous DBT examinations they had undergone. Performance metrics were compared between DM and DBT groups and between patients with no previous DBT examinations and those with at least one prior DBT examination by using multivariable logistic regression models. Results The DM group consisted of 99 582 DM examinations in 55 086 women (mean age, 57.3 years ± 11.6 [standard deviation]). The DBT group consisted of 205 048 examinations in 76 276 women (mean age, 58.2 years ± 11.2). There were no differences in the cancer detection rate (CDR) between DM and DBT groups (4.6-5.8 per 1000 examinations, P = .08 to P = .95). The highest CDR was observed with a woman's first DBT examination (6.1 per 1000 examinations vs 4.4-5.7 per 1000 examinations with at least one prior DBT examination, P = .001 to P = .054). Compared with the DM group, the DBT1 group had a lower abnormal interpretation rate (AIR) (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.85; P < .001), which remained reduced in the DBT2, DBT3, and DBT5 groups (P < .001 to P = .02). The reduction in AIR was also sustained after the first examination (P < .001 to P = .002). Compared with the DM group, the DBT1 group had a higher specificity (AOR, 1.20; P < .001), which remained increased in DBT2, DBT3, and DBT5 groups (P < .001 to P = .004). The increase in specificity was also sustained after the first examination (P < .001 to P = .01). Conclusion The benefits of reduced false-positive examinations and higher specificity with screening tomosynthesis were sustained after the first screening round at the individual level. © RSNA, 2020 See also the editorial by Taourel in this issue.

The Impact of Preoperative Breast MRI on Surgical Management of Women with Newly Diagnosed Ductal Carcinoma In Situ

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Use of preoperative breast MRI (pMRI) to evaluate ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) extent is controversial due to limited data on its impact on surgical management. We sought to evaluate the effect of pMRI on surgical management of women with core needle biopsy (CNB)-diagnosed pure DCIS at a multidisciplinary academic institution.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective study included all women with CNB-diagnosed DCIS (1/2004-12/2013) without prior ipsilateral breast cancer and who underwent surgery within 180 days of diagnosis. Patient features, number of CNBs and surgeries, and single successful breast conserving surgery (BCS) rate were compared between pMRI and no-pMRI cohorts. Number of surgeries and single BCS success rates were also compared to published US (SEER) and Danish National Registry data.

RESULTS

Among the 373 women included, no clinical differences were identified between the pMRI (n = 332) and no-pMRI (n = 41) cohorts (p > 0.05). The pMRI group experienced a higher additional CNB rate (30% vs. 7%, p = 0.002) but fewer total surgeries (mean = 1.2 vs. 1.5, p < 0.001) than the no-pMRI group. Among the 245 women for whom BCS was attempted, the pMRI cohort underwent fewer mean surgeries (1.3 vs. 1.7, p < 0.001) with a greater single successful BCS rate (77% vs. 43%, p < 0.001). Compared to published data, women with pMRI who underwent BCS experienced fewer surgeries (difference (Δ) = -0.22 vs. -0.17, p < 0.001) with a higher single successful BCS rate (Δ = +20% vs. +14%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

pMRI may improve surgical management of DCIS at multidisciplinary centers with breast cancer specialists.

Breast Cancer Screening in Puerto Rico and Other US Territories: Findings from the 2016 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Survey

Initial studies suggest that women living in U.S. territories may experience barriers to appropriate breast cancer diagnosis and treatment. Our purpose was to evaluate mammography screening engagement in U.S. territories compared with U.S. states. Women aged 50-74 years in the 2016 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System survey without personal history of breast cancer were included. Proportions of women reporting mammography use were calculated. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to compare self-reported mammography use in U.S. territories with all U.S. states. Our total study population included 131,320 women. Of this group, 2,481 were from U.S. territories. In our adjusted analyses, women in the U.S. Virgin Islands were less likely to report mammography use (OR 0.52) compared with women in the U.S. states. Women in other U.S. territories reported mammography at similar rates to U.S. states. Targeted interventions accounting for unique, territory-specific barriers are likely required to improve screening engagement.

Association of Magnetic Resonance Imaging and a 12-Gene Expression Assay With Breast Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Treatment

Importance

Advanced diagnostics, such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and gene expression profiles, are potentially useful to guide targeted treatment in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).

Objectives

To examine the proportion of patients who converted to mastectomy after MRI and the reasons for those conversions and to measure patient adherence to radiotherapy guided by the 12-gene DCIS score.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Analysis of a prospective, cohort, nonrandomized clinical trial that enrolled women with DCIS on core biopsy who were candidates for wide local excision (WLE) from 75 institutions from March 25, 2015, to April 27, 2016, through the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group-American College of Radiology Imaging Network trial E4112.

Interventions

Participants underwent breast MRI before surgery, and subsequent management incorporated MRI findings for choice of surgery. The DCIS score was used to guide radiotherapy recommendations among women with DCIS who had WLE as the final procedure and had tumor-free excision margins of 2 mm or greater.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary end point was to estimate the conversion rate to mastectomy and the reason for conversion.

Results

Of 339 evaluable women (mean [SD] age, 59.1 [10.1] years; 262 [77.3%] of European descent) eligible for WLE before MRI, 65 (19.2%; 95% CI, 15.3%-23.7%) converted to mastectomy. Of these 65 patients, conversion was based on MRI findings in 25 (38.5%), patient preference in 25 (38.5%), positive margins after attempted WLE in 10 (15.4%), positive genetic test results in 3 (4.6%), and contraindication to radiotherapy in 2 (3.1%). Among the 285 who had WLE performed after MRI as the first surgical procedure, 274 (96.1%) achieved successful breast conservation. Of 171 women eligible for radiotherapy guided by DCIS score (clear margins, absence of invasive disease, and score obtained), the score was low (<39) in 82 (48.0%; 95% CI, 40.6%-55.4%) and intermediate-high (≥39) in 89 (52.0%; 95% CI, 44.6%-59.4%). Of these 171 patients, 159 (93.0%) were adherent with recommendations.

Conclusions and Relevance

Among women with DCIS who were WLE candidates based on conventional imaging, multiple factors were associated with conversion to mastectomy. This study may provide useful preliminary information required for designing a planned randomized clinical trial to determine the effect of MRI and DCIS score on surgical management, radiotherapy, overall resource use, and clinical outcomes, with the ultimate goal of achieving greater therapeutic precision.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02352883.

The Effect of Prior Comparison MRI on Interpretive Performance of Screening Breast MRI

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of prior comparison MRI on interpretive performance of screening breast MRI.

METHODS

After institutional review board approval, all screening breast MRI examinations performed from January 2011 through December 2014 were retrospectively reviewed. Screening performance metrics were estimated and compared for exams with and without a prior comparison MRI, using logistic regression models to adjust for age and screening indication (BRCA mutation or thoracic radiation versus breast cancer history versus high-risk lesion history versus breast cancer family history).

RESULTS

Most exams, 4509 (87%), had a prior comparison MRI (incidence round), while 661 (13%) did not (prevalence round). Abnormal interpretation rate (6% vs 20%, P < 0.01), biopsy rate (3% vs 9%, P < 0.01), and false-positive biopsy recommendation rate per 1000 exams (21 vs 71, P < 0.01) were significantly lower in the incidence rounds compared to the prevalence rounds, while specificity was significantly higher (95% vs 81%, P < 0.01). There was no difference in cancer detection rate (CDR) per 1000 exams (12 vs 20, P = 0.1), positive predictive value of biopsies performed (PPV3) (35% vs 23%, P = 0.1), or sensitivity (86% vs 76%, P = 0.4).

CONCLUSION

Presence of a prior comparison significantly improves incidence round screening breast MRI examination performance compared with prevalence round screening. Consideration should be given to updating the BI-RADS breast MRI screening benchmarks and auditing prevalence and incidence round examinations separately.

Patient-Assisted Compression in Screening Mammography: Patient Experience and Image Quality

OBJECTIVE

Screening mammography is critical to reduce breast cancer mortality, yet many women cite pain from compression as a reason they avoid this test. We evaluated patient experience and image quality in screening patients opting for a handheld patient-assisted compression (PAC) device.

METHODS

After institutional review board approval, women screened between February and July 2018 with a synthetic 2D/tomosynthesis mammography unit were offered use of a handheld PAC device. Patient experience through survey, image quality, compression thickness, compression force, and average glandular dose were evaluated and compared between women opting for PAC and women opting for technologist-controlled compression (TC). Multivariable ordinal logistic and linear regression models were estimated to control for age and breast density. In addition, for women opting for PAC, image quality obtained with their current PAC mammogram was compared with that obtained with their prior TC mammogram, by using Wilcoxon/Pearson tests.

RESULTS

Seventy-three percent of women preferred their mammogram experience with PAC compared with their prior mammogram without PAC. Women using PAC reported decreased anxiety compared with those using TC, after controlling for age and breast density (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.22 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.09-0.49]). There were no significant differences in image quality, compression thickness, or average glandular dose in exams for women using PAC compared with exams for women using TC. Women using PAC had significantly more compression force than women using TC had (P = 0.012).

CONCLUSIONS

Mammography with PAC improves patient experience and results in similar image quality compared with mammography with TC.

Obesity and breast cancer screening: Cross-sectional survey results from the behavioral risk factor surveillance system

BACKGROUND

Postmenopausal obese women demonstrate an elevated breast cancer risk and experience increased breast cancer morbidity and mortality compared with women with a normal body mass index (BMI). However, to the authors' knowledge, prior studies have yielded inconclusive results regarding the effects of obesity on mammography screening adherence. Using national cross-sectional survey data, the objective of the current study was to assess the current association between increasing BMI and use of mammography screening.

METHODS

Cross-sectional survey data from the 2016 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, a state-based national telephone survey of noninstitutionalized adults in the United States, was used to identify the association between mammography screening use and increasing incremental BMI categories, including normal (18.5-24.9 kg/m² ), overweight (25-29.9 kg/m² ), obese class I (30-34.9 kg/m² ), obese class II (35-39.9 kg/m² ), and obese class III (>40 kg/m² ), with adjustments for potential confounders. A multivariable logistic regression model was used to evaluate the effect of each BMI category on self-reported mammography use, using unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios. Effect modification by race/ethnicity was determined by testing interaction terms using Wald tests.

RESULTS

Of 116,343 survey respondents, 33.5% (38,984 respondents) had a normal BMI, 32.6% (37,969 respondents) were overweight, 19.3% (22,416 respondents) were classified as obese class I, 8.4% (9791 respondents) were classified as obese class II, and 6.2% (7183 respondents) were classified as obese class III. There was no statistically significant difference (P < .05) observed with regard to mammography use between women with a normal BMI and obese women from each obese class (classes I-III) when compared individually. There also was no evidence of effect modification by race (P = .53).

CONCLUSIONS

In contrast to prior reports, the results of the current study demonstrated no association between obesity and adherence to screening mammography. These findings may relate to the increasing social acceptance of obesity among women from all racial/ethnic groups and the removal of weight-related facility-level barriers over time.

Surveillance Breast MRI and Mammography: Comparison in Women with a Personal History of Breast Cancer

Background There is lack of consensus regarding the use of breast MRI for routine surveillance for second breast cancer events in women with a personal history of breast cancer. Purpose To compare performance of surveillance mammography with breast MRI. Materials and Methods This observational cohort study used prospectively collected data and included 13 266 women age 18 years and older (mean age, 60 years ± 13) with stage 0-III breast cancer who underwent 33 938 mammographic examinations and 2506 breast MRI examinations from 2005 to 2012 in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Women were categorized into two groups: mammography alone (n = 11 745) or breast MRI (n = 1521). Performance measures were calculated by using end-of-day assessment and occurrence of second breast cancer events within 1 year of imaging. Logistic regression was used to compare performance for breast MRI versus mammography alone, adjusting for women, examination, and primary breast cancer characteristics. Analysis was conducted on a per-examination basis. Results Breast MRI was associated with younger age at diagnosis, chemotherapy, and higher education and income. Raw performance measures for breast MRI versus mammography were as follows, respectively: cancer detection rates, 10.8 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.7, 14.8) versus 8.2 (95% CI: 7.3, 9.2) per 1000 examinations; sensitivity, 61.4% (27 of 44; 95% CI: 46.5%, 76.2%) versus 70.3% (279 of 397; 95% CI: 65.8%, 74.8%); and biopsy rate, 10.1% (253 of 2506; 95% CI: 8.9%, 11.3%) versus 4.0% (1343 of 33 938; 95% CI: 3.7%, 4.2%). In multivariable models, breast MRI was associated with higher biopsy rate (odds ratio [OR], 2.2; 95% CI: 1.9, 2.7; P < .001) and cancer detection rate (OR, 1.7; 95% CI: 1.1, 2.7; P = .03) than mammography alone. However, there were no differences in sensitivity (OR, 1.1; 95% CI: 0.4, 2.9; P = .84) or interval cancer rate (OR, 1.1; 95% CI: 0.6, 2.2; P = .70). Conclusion Comparison of the performance of surveillance breast MRI with mammography must account for patient characteristics. Whereas breast MRI leads to higher biopsy and cancer detection rates, there were no significant differences in sensitivity or interval cancers compared with mammography. © RSNA, 2019 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Newell in this issue.

Influence of Menstrual Cycle Timing on Screening Breast MRI Background Parenchymal Enhancement and Diagnostic Performance in Premenopausal Women

Purpose

To assess the influence of menstrual cycle timing on background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) and performance on screening breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in premenopausal women at high risk for developing breast cancer.

Methods

After Institutional Review Board approval, all screening breast MRIs performed from January 2007 through November 2010 in premenopausal women in whom day from last menstrual period was recorded were identified. Prospectively recorded BPE levels and Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System MRI assessments were extracted from our database. Subject outcomes were determined by using biopsy, imaging follow-up, and linkage with the regional tumor registry (minimum 12-month follow-up). Associations of BPE levels (minimal/mild versus moderate/marked) with menstrual cycle phase (follicular [day 0-15] versus luteal [day 16-35]) and week (1, 2, 3, or 4) were compared. Differences in MRI performance metrics, including abnormal interpretation rate (AIR), positive biopsy rate (PBR), cancer yield, sensitivity, and specificity, were compared between menstrual cycle phase and menstrual cycle week.

Results

Three-hundred twenty examinations in 244 premenopausal women met inclusion criteria with nine cancers diagnosed. BPE levels were not associated with menstrual cycle phase or week (P > 0.05). MRI performance metrics (ie, AIR, PBR, cancer yield, sensitivity, or specificity) did not differ significantly based on menstrual cycle phase or menstrual cycle week (P > 0.05).

Conclusions

Obtaining screening breast MRI exams during specific phases or weeks of the menstrual cycle in premenopausal women does not reliably produce MRI examinations with lower BPE levels or improved performance.

Impact of a Same-Day Breast Biopsy Program on Disparities in Time to Biopsy

BACKGROUND

Disparities in breast cancer diagnosis are established. In usual practice, biopsies are performed days or weeks after recommendation. Our aim was to measure the impact of a same-day biopsy program on disparities in time from biopsy recommendation to performance.

METHODS

After Institutional Review Board approval, we identified all diagnostic examinations leading to biopsy pre- (September 2016 to March 2017) and post- (September 2017 to March 2018) implementation of our same-day biopsy program. We compared demographic characteristics (age, race, language, and insurance) and biopsy information (days from biopsy recommendation to biopsy, and proportion of same-day biopsies in all biopsies) in pre- versus postimplementation groups. Multivariable linear and logistic models in pre- and postimplementation groups assessed if days from biopsy recommendation to biopsy and having a same-day biopsy were associated with patient subgroups.

RESULTS

In all, 663 and 482 patients underwent biopsy during pre- and postimplementation periods, respectively. Patient subgroups were similar between periods. For all patients, the same-day biopsy program decreased median time from diagnostic examination to biopsy from 8 (interquartile range: 4-13) to 0 (interquartile range: 0-4) days (P < .001). During the pre-implementation period, nonwhite patients and having Medicare insurance were associated with longer days to biopsy (nonwhite Adjusted Coefficient: 2.31, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.58-4.03; insurance Adjusted Coefficient: 2.47, 95% CI: 0.58-4.37; P < .05), after adjustment. During the postimplementation period, the previously seen disparities did not persist (nonwhite Adjusted Coefficient: -0.416, 95% CI: -2.16-1.33; insurance Adjusted Coefficient: 0.812, 95% CI: -1.18-2.80; P > .05).

CONCLUSION

There was no evidence of racial/ethnic or insurance disparities in time from biopsy recommendation to performance after implementation of a same-day biopsy program.

Assessing Eligibility for Lung Cancer Screening Among Women Undergoing Screening Mammography: Cross-Sectional Survey Results From the National Health Interview Survey

PURPOSE

Millions of women undergo mammography screening each year, presenting an opportunity for radiologists to identify women eligible for lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose chest CT and smoking cessation counseling. The purpose of our study was to estimate the proportion of women eligible for LCS and tobacco cessation counseling among women reporting mammography screening within the previous 2 years using nationally representative cross-sectional survey data.

METHODS

Women between the ages of 55 and 74 years in the 2015 National Health Interview Survey without history of lung or breast cancer who reported mammography use in the previous 2 years were included. The primary outcome was the weighted proportion of women eligible for LCS. Secondary outcomes included self-reported receipt of LCS and current smoking. Bivariate and multiple variable logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate the association between primary and secondary outcomes and sociodemographics, accounting for complex survey design elements.

RESULTS

Among 3,806 women meeting inclusion criteria, 7.1% were eligible for LCS and 9.8% were current smokers. Multivariable analyses demonstrated that LCS-eligible women were more likely to be white, younger, and non-college-educated and have lower household incomes (all P < .001). Among all LCS-eligible women, 58% reported undergoing mammography screening within the previous 2 years. Among LCS-eligible women who underwent screening mammography, 7.9% reported undergoing LCS.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of LCS-eligible women received mammography screening but did not receive LCS. Mammography encounters may represent prime opportunities to increase LCS participation among patients already receiving imaging-based screening services.