Search

PURPOSE Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in conjunction with digital mammography (DM) is becoming the preferred imaging modality for breast cancer screening compared with DM alone, on the basis of improved recall rates (RR) and cancer detection rates (CDRs). The aim of this study was to investigate racial differences in the utilization and performance of screening modality. METHODS Retrospective data from 63 US breast imaging facilities from 2015 to 2019 were reviewed. Screening outcomes were linked to cancer registries. RR, CDR per 1,000 examinations, and positive predictive value for recall (cancers/recalled patients) were compared. RESULTS A total of 385,503 women contributed 542,945 DBT and 261,359 DM screens. A lower proportion of screenings for Black women were performed using DBT plus DM (referred to as DBT) (44% for Black, 48% for other, 63% for Asian, and 61% for White). Non-White women were less likely to undergo more than one mammographic examination. RRs were lower for DBT among all women (8.74 versus 10.06, P < .05) and lower across all races and within age categories. RRs were significantly higher for women with only one mammogram. CDRs were similar or higher in women undergoing DBT compared with DM, overall (4.73 versus 4.60, adjusted P = .0005) and by age and race. Positive predictive value for recall was greater for DBT overall (5.29 versus 4.45, adjusted P < .0001) and by age, race, and screening frequency. CONCLUSIONS All racial groups had improved outcomes with DBT screening, but disparities were observed in DBT utilization. These data suggest that reducing inequities in DBT utilization may improve the effectiveness of breast cancer screening.

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

Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic led to a near-total cessation of mammography services in the United States in mid-March 2020. It is unclear if screening and diagnostic mammography volumes have recovered to prepandemic levels and whether use has varied by women’s characteristics. Methods We collected data on 461 083 screening mammograms and 112 207 diagnostic mammograms conducted during January 2019 through July 2020 at 62 radiology facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. We compared monthly screening and diagnostic mammography volumes before and during the pandemic stratified by age, race and ethnicity, breast density, and family history of breast cancer. Results Screening and diagnostic mammography volumes in April 2020 were 1.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.5% to 2.4%) and 21.4% (95% CI = 18.7% to 24.4%) of the April 2019 prepandemic volumes, respectively, but by July 2020 had rebounded to 89.7% (95% CI = 79.6% to 101.1%) and 101.6% (95% CI = 93.8% to 110.1%) of the July 2019 prepandemic volumes, respectively. The year-to-date cumulative volume of screening and diagnostic mammograms performed through July 2020 was 66.2% (95% CI = 60.3% to 72.6%) and 79.9% (95% CI = 75.4% to 84.6%), respectively, of year-to-date volume through July 2019. Screening mammography rebound was similar across age groups and by family history of breast cancer. Monthly screening mammography volume in July 2020 for Black, White, Hispanic, and Asian women reached 96.7% (95% CI = 88.1% to 106.1%), 92.9% (95% CI = 82.9% to 104.0%), 72.7% (95% CI = 56.5% to 93.6%), and 51.3% (95% CI = 39.7% to 66.2%) of the July 2019 prepandemic volume, respectively. Conclusions Despite a strong overall rebound in mammography volume by July 2020, the rebound lagged among Asian and Hispanic women, and a substantial cumulative deficit in missed mammograms accumulated, which may have important health consequences.

PURPOSE To evaluate comparative associations of breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) and mammographic breast density with subsequent breast cancer risk. PATIENTS AND METHODS We examined women undergoing breast MRI in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium from 2005 to 2015 (with one exam in 2000) using qualitative BPE assessments of minimal, mild, moderate, or marked. Breast density was assessed on mammography performed within 5 years of MRI. Among women diagnosed with breast cancer, the first BPE assessment was included if it was more than 3 months before their first diagnosis. Breast cancer risk associated with BPE was estimated using Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS Among 4,247 women, 176 developed breast cancer (invasive, n = 129; ductal carcinoma in situ,n = 47) over a median follow-up time of 2.8 years. More women with cancer had mild, moderate, or marked BPE than women without cancer (80% v 66%, respectively). Compared with minimal BPE, increasing BPE levels were associated with significantly increased cancer risk (mild: hazard ratio [HR], 1.80; 95% CI, 1.12 to 2.87; moderate: HR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.51 to 3.86; and marked: HR, 3.41; 95% CI, 2.05 to 5.66). Compared with women with minimal BPE and almost entirely fatty or scattered fibroglandular breast density, women with mild, moderate, or marked BPE demonstrated elevated cancer risk if they had almost entirely fatty or scattered fibroglandular breast density (HR, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.19 to 4.46) or heterogeneous or extremely dense breasts (HR, 2.61; 95% CI, 1.44 to 4.72), with no significant interaction ( P = .82). Combined mild, moderate, and marked BPE demonstrated significantly increased risk of invasive cancer (HR, 2.73; 95% CI, 1.66 to 4.49) but not ductal carcinoma in situ (HR, 1.48; 95% CI, 0.72 to 3.05). CONCLUSION BPE is associated with future invasive breast cancer risk independent of breast density. BPE should be considered for risk prediction models for women undergoing breast MRI.

Rationale and Objectives To compare outcomes associated with breast cancer screening with digital mammography (DM) alone versus in combination with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in a large representative cohort. Materials and Methods A total of 325,729 screening mammograms from 247,431 women were analyzed, across two healthcare systems, from June 2015 to September 2017. Patient level demographic, calculated risk levels, and clinical outcomes were extracted from radiology information system and electronic medical records. Multivariable regression modeling adjusting for institution, age, breast density, and first exam was conducted to compare patient characteristics, recall rates, time to biopsy and final diagnosis, clinical outcomes, and diagnostic performance. Participating institutions and the Coordinating Center received Institutional Review Board approval for a waiver of consent to collect and link data and perform analysis. Results A total of 194,437 (59.7%) screens were DBT versus 131,292 (40.3%) with DM. Women with dense breasts and higher calculated risk were more likely to be screened with DBT. Recall rates were lower for DBT overall (8.83% DBT vs 10.98% DM, adjusted odds ratio, 95% confidence interval = 0.85, 0.83–0.87) and across all age groups, races, and breast densities, and at facilities that used predominantly DBT (8.05%) versus predominantly DM (11.22%), or a combination (10.73%). The most common diagnostic pathway after recall was mammography and ultrasound. Women recalled from DBT were more likely to proceed directly to ultrasound. The median time to biopsy (18 vs 22 days) and final diagnosis (10 vs 13 days) was shorter for DBT. The adjusted cancer rate, cancer detection rate, and specificity were higher for DBT. Conclusion DBT demonstrated a more efficient screening pathway and improved quality measures with lower recall rates in all patient types, reduced diagnostic mammography and shorter time to biopsy and final diagnosis.