Search

Background Supporting well-informed decisions about breast cancer screening requires communicating that inconsequential disease may be detected, leading to overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Having previously shown that telling women about overdetection improved informed choice, we investigated effects on screening knowledge and participation over 2 years. Methods We conducted a community-based, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial in Australia. Participants were women aged 48-50 years, without personal or strong family history of breast cancer, who had not undergone mammography in the past 2 years. We randomly assigned 879 women to receive the intervention decision aid (evidence-based information on overdetection, breast cancer mortality reduction, and false-positives) or control decision aid (identical but without overdetection information). We interviewed 838 women postintervention and recontacted them for follow-up at 6 months and 1 and 2 years. Main outcomes for this report are screening knowledge and participation. Results We interviewed 790, 746, and 712 participants at 6 months, 1, and 2 years, respectively. The intervention group demonstrated superior knowledge throughout follow-up. After 2 years, conceptual knowledge was adequate in 123 (34.4%) of 358 women in the intervention group compared with 71 (20.1%) of 354 control participants(odds ratio = 2.04, 95% confidence interval = 1.46 to 2.85). Groups were similar in total screening participation (200 [55.1%] vs 204 [56.0%]; = 0.97, 95% confidence interval = 0.73 to 1.29). Conclusions A brief decision aid produced lasting improvement in women’s understanding of potential consequences of screening, including overdetection, without changing participation rates. These findings support the use of decision aids for breast cancer screening.

Objective To compare the mean glandular dose (MGD), cancer detection rate (CDR), and recall rate (RR) among screening examinations of patients with breast implants utilizing various digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT)-based imaging protocols. Methods This IRB-approved retrospective study included 1998 women with breast implants who presented for screening mammography between December 10, 2013, and May 29, 2020. Images were obtained using various protocol combinations of DBT and 2D digital mammography. Data collected included MGD, implant type and position, breast density, BI-RADS final assessment category, CDR, and RR. Statistical analysis utilized type II analysis of variance and the chi-square test. Results The highest MGD was observed in the DBT only protocol, while the 2D only protocol had the lowest (10.29 mGy vs 5.88 mGy, respectively). Statistically significant difference in MGD was observed across protocols (P < 0.0001). The highest per-view MGD was among DBT full-field (FF) views in both craniocaudal and mediolateral oblique projections (P < 0.0001). No significant difference was observed in RR among protocols (P = 0.17). The combined 2D (FF only) + DBT implant-displaced (ID) views protocol detected the highest number of cancers (CDR, 7.2 per 1000), but this was not significantly different across protocols (P = 0.48). Conclusion The combination of 2D FF views and DBT ID views should be considered for women with breast implants in a DBT-based screening practice when aiming to minimize radiation exposure without compromising the sensitivity of cancer detection. Avoidance of DBT FF in this patient population is recommended to minimize radiation dose.

Anxiety has been portrayed by the media and some organizations and societies as one of the harms of mammography. However, one experiences anxiety in multiple different medical tests that are undertaken, including screening examinations; it is not unique to mammography. Some may argue that because this anxiety is transient, the so-called harm is potentially overstated, but for some women the anxiety is significant. Anxiety can increase or decrease the likelihood of obtaining a screening mammogram. There are multiple ways that anxiety associated with screening mammography can be diminished, including before, during, and after the examination. These include simple measures such as patient education, improved communication, being aware of the patient’s potential discomfort and addressing it, validating the patient’s anxiety as well as providing the patient with positive factual data that can easily be implemented in every breast center. More complex interventions include altering the breast center environment with multisensory stimulation, reorganization of patient flow to minimize wait times, and relaxation techniques including complementary and alternative medicine. In this article we will review the literature on measures that can be taken to minimize anxiety that would maximize the likelihood of a woman obtaining an annual screening mammogram.

Anxiety is often cited as a risk of screening mammography, and organizations such as the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force list anxiety as a screening-associated “harm” that should be mitigated. However, the level of mammography-related anxiety risk is difficult to assign clearly for myriad reasons, including the variability of individuals’ baseline susceptibility to anxiety, the self-reported nature of subjective anxiety states, and the multiple sources of breast cancer screening–related anxiety. In addition, anxiety measures differ between studies and psychological responses to screening mammography vary across racial and ethnic groups. Nonetheless, breast radiology practices should acknowledge the existence of mammography-associated anxiety and consider strategies to decrease it. These strategies include immediate screening interpretations, patient education efforts, and relaxation techniques.

Neurofibroma (NF) of the breast is an uncommon benign entity that occurs sporadically or in association with neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1). Sporadic NF of the breast is very rare and can present at any age. Neurofibroma of the breast associated with NF1 is more common. Neurofibroma commonly presents as oval, circumscribed masses that overlap with many benign entities. The histopathologic diagnosis of NF of the breast can present a management dilemma for the breast radiologist. An NF that is not associated with NF1 has good post-resection prognosis if superficial, sporadic, and solitary. However, NF of the breast diagnosed in an otherwise healthy patient should prompt evaluation for NF1 and formal genetic risk assessment. Patients diagnosed with NF1 have a higher lifetime risk for developing breast cancer and therefore may benefit from both initiating screening mammography at a younger age and supplemental screening MRI.

As the population of the United States becomes increasingly diverse, radiologists must learn to both understand and mitigate the impact of health disparities. Significant health disparities persist in radiologic care, including breast imaging. Racial and ethnic minorities, women from lower socioeconomic status, those living in rural areas, and the uninsured bear a disproportionate burden of breast cancer morbidity and mortality. Currently, there is no centralized radiology curriculum focusing on breast health disparities available to residents, breast imaging fellows, or practicing breast radiologists. While patient-, provider-, and system-level initiatives are necessary to overcome disparities, our purpose is to describe educational strategies targeted to breast imaging radiologists at all levels to provide equitable care to a diverse population. These strategies may include, but are not limited to, diversifying the breast imaging workforce, understanding the needs of a diverse population, cultural sensitivity and bias training, and fostering awareness of the existing issues in screening mammography access, follow-up imaging, and clinical care.

Since 1990, breast cancer mortality has decreased by 40% in white women but only 26% in African American women. The age at diagnosis of breast cancer is younger in black women. Breast cancer diagnosed before age 50 represents 23% of all breast cancers in African American women but only 16% of all breast cancers in white women. White women have a higher incidence of breast cancer over the age of 60. Tumor subtypes also vary among racial and ethnic groups. The triple-negative (TN) subtype, which has a poorer outcome and occurs at a younger age, represents 21% of invasive breast cancers in black women but only 10% of invasive breast cancers in white women. The hormone receptor–positive subtype, which is more common in older women and has the best outcome, has a higher incidence in white women (70%) than in black women (61%). The BRCA2 mutation is also more common in black women than in white women (other than those who are of Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry). There are also many barriers to screening. Major ones include the lack of contact with a primary health care provider as well as a decreased perceived risk of having breast cancer in the African American population. Given the younger age of onset and the higher incidence of the TN molecular subtype, following breast cancer screening guidelines that do not support screening before the age of 50 may disadvantage black women.

Mammography is the long-standing screening tool for detecting breast cancer. Breast MRI is the most sensitive screening modality; however, it has been reserved for patients who are at an increased risk of developing breast cancer. Abbreviated breast MRI (AB-MRI) overcomes the limitations of cost and scanner time when considering screening patients at average or slightly elevated risk. This paper discusses the practical considerations for implementing an AB-MRI program on many levels, after our two-year experience. One of the first steps in introducing an AB-MRI program, since there is no standardized protocol, is determining and implementing a protocol. Since there is no Current Procedural Terminology code for an AB-MRI, a self-pay charge should be established. Adjusting MRI scheduling templates to accommodate the 10-minute AB-MRI exam is helpful. Communication with the breast team and the education of referring physicians is a key step to ensure awareness of a new screening option. As the AB-MRI program is incorporated into a practice, auditing of routine screening outcomes several months after commencement is invaluable to the continued success of the program.

Breast cancer is emerging as a major global public health problem. Incidence and mortality continues to rise in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). A significant and growing disparity exists between high-income countries and LMICs in the availability of screening services and associated preventable mortality. However, population imaging-based screening programs are not appropriate for all settings. Planners should perform a thorough assessment of the target setting prior to implementing any breast cancer detection program, as appropriate guidelines vary according to the resources available. Financial, social, and cultural barriers to breast cancer care need to be addressed to sustainably improve the morbidity and mortality of the populations and make efficient use of available services. Creative approaches, such as mobile and portable imaging and bundling of services, can facilitate the installation of early breast cancer detection programs in LMICs. While image-based screening programs are not initially resource-appropriate in many LMICs, planners can work towards this goal as part of their comprehensive breast cancer detection strategy.

Objective We sought to identify provider knowledge gaps and their predictors, as revealed by a breast density continuing education course marketed to the radiology community. Methods The course, continually available online during the study period of November 2, 2016 and December 31, 2018, includes demographics collection; a monograph on breast density, breast cancer risk, and screening; and a post-test. Four post-test questions were modified during the study period, resulting in different sample sizes pre- and postmodification. Multiple logistic regression was used to identify predictors of knowledge gaps (defined as > 25% of responses incorrect). Results Of 1649 analyzable registrants, 1363 (82.7%) were radiologic technologists, 226 (13.7%) were physicians, and 60 (3.6%) were other nonphysicians; over 90% of physicians and over 90% of technologists/nonphysicians specialized in radiology. Sixteen of 49 physicians (32.7%) and 80/233 (34.3%) technologists/nonphysicians mistakenly thought the Gail model should be used to determine “high-risk” status for recommending MRI or genetic testing. Ninety-nine of 226 (43.8%) physicians and 682/1423 (47.9%) technologists/nonphysicians misunderstood the inverse relationship between increasing age and lifetime breast cancer risk. Fifty-two of 166 (31.3%) physicians and 549/1151 (47.7%) technologists/nonphysicians were unaware that MRI should be recommended for women with a family history of BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations. Tomosynthesis effectiveness was overestimated, with 18/60 (30.0%) physicians and 95/272 (34.9%) technologists/nonphysicians believing sensitivity nearly equaled MRI. Knowledge gaps were more common in technologists/nonphysicians. Conclusions Important knowledge gaps about breast density, breast cancer risk assessment, and screening exist among radiologic technologists and radiologists. Continued education efforts may improve appropriate breast cancer screening recommendations.

The objective of this article is to outline opportunities for breast imaging radiologists to advocate for screening mammography. Despite breast cancer being the second most common cancer in women and screening mammography’s ability to reduce mortality from this disease, there remains suboptimal utilization in the community. The different guidelines for screening presented by respected organizations has created confusion for patients and referring clinicians and the eventual underutilization of screening mammography. As experts in the value of early detection, breast radiologists are well suited to take on the role of screening advocates. Using specific action steps and examples, we create a template for a radiologist to utilize in the promotion of screening among the breast imaging team, clinicians, administrators, and the community at large. By deliberately filling the role of screening mammography advocate, one can satisfy the mandate for radiologists to bring increased value to the health care team while contributing to community health and patient satisfaction.

Background Breast cancer remains one of the leading causes of death in women over the age of 40 years. Breast cancer screening is used to identify women with asymptomatic cancer with the goal of enabling women to undergo less invasive treatments that lead to better outcomes, ideally at earlier stages and before the cancer progresses. Mammography is the best-studied breast cancer screening modality and the only recommended imaging tool for screening the general population of women. Objective to correlate the relation between ACR density of breast and breast cancer in screening program. Patients and Methods Our study included 40 women of breast cancer were depicted radiologically and histo-pathologically diagnosed after outreaching for screening by Digital Mammography by the Egyptian National Breast Cancer Screening Program in Ain Shams University Hospitals at period from January 2018 to October 2019.Their data were collected from the medical records of the program. Their age ranged between 40 and 65 years. Results According to the BI-RADS 5th edition 2013, cases were classified into four classes as follows: 6 were ACR-A (15.0%), 21 were ACR-B (52.5%), 12 were ACR-C (30.0%) and 1 were ACR-D (2.5%), So according to our study results dense breast shouldn’t be considered as a risk factor for breast cancer as we observed that the percentage of breast cancer in our study increases the most with average breast density ACR class B then increases with ACR class C and A respectively. Conclusion dense breast is not a risk factor for breast cancer, so further researches are needed to study the relationship between breast density and breast cancer in Egyptian population, to elucidate the role of breast density estimation in prediction of breast cancer considering the genotypical and phenotypical differences of the Egyptian population.

Objective To understand physicians’ comprehension of breast cancer screening guidelines and the existing literature on breast cancer screening, and whether this contributes to how patient screening is implemented in clinical practice. Methods A survey of 18 questions was distributed across the United States via e-mail and social media resources to physicians and medical students of all disciplines and levels of training. Responses from 728 physicians and medical students were reviewed. Respondents were from over 200 different institutions and over 60 different medical specialties. Results Our survey demonstrates that more than half of the participants felt uncomfortable in their knowledge of breast cancer screening recommendations (399/728, 54.8%) and existing literature on breast cancer screening (555/728, 76.2%). When stratified based on level of training, those at the attending level reported a greater level of comfort in their knowledge of breast cancer screening recommendations (168/238, 70.6%) and literature (95/238, 39.9%) compared with respondents at the trainee level. Attending physicians are also more likely to recommend screening for patients between the ages of 40–49 years old (209/238, 87.7%) compared to those at the trainee level. Responses on whether to screen based on age were most consistent for patients ages 50–74, with greater than 90% of the respondents endorsing screening mammogram for this age group in all levels of training. There were greater inconsistencies in the support to screen age groups 40–49 and 75+ . Conclusions The results showed a disparity in screening practices by clinicians in all levels of training, particularly for patients ages 40–49 and 75+ , and for the interval of screening. Later initiation with less frequent intervals between screens may reduce the impact of screening on mortality reduction.

Objective New breast screening modalities are being investigated to address the need for more sensitive breast cancer screening in women with dense breasts. We investigated the preferences and attitudes of these patients regarding adjunct screening modalities to help evaluate the acceptability of these exams. Methods In this institutional review board–approved prospective study, patients with dense breasts on their prior mammogram were invited to complete a survey. Patients were asked to estimate their personal breast cancer risk compared with peers, indicate their level of concern related to screening callbacks, radiation exposure, and intravenous (IV) contrast allergies, and identify which factors might deter them from getting adjunct screening exams. Results Five hundred eight patients with dense breasts presenting for screening mammography completed surveys. While most patients (304/508, 59.9%) felt it was likely or very likely that cancer could be missed on their mammogram, only 8.9% (45/508) had undergone adjunct screening exams in the past 3 years. The most commonly cited deterrents to adjunct screening were cost (340/508, 66.9%), pain (173/508, 34.1%), and concern that adjunct screening could lead to additional procedures (158/508, 31.1%). When asked to select among three hypothetical breast cancer screening modalities, patients strongly preferred the more sensitive examination, even if this involved greater cost (162/508, 31.9%) or IV-contrast administration (315/508, 62.0%). Conclusion Our data suggest that patients with dense breasts prefer adjunct screening exams that are both sensitive and inexpensive, although an increase in sensitivity could outweigh additional cost or even IV-line placement.

Over 1 billion people worldwide live with a disability. Patients living with disability are often challenged by many barriers to healthcare access, especially preventive and screening services. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 mandated that access to public accommodations related to medical care in the United States be available to all; however, many healthcare facilities fall short of meeting this requirement. Research studies suggest that women with chronic disabilities are less likely to undergo breast cancer screening due to financial, environmental, and physical limitations, as well as psychological barriers. There is scarcity of research on the needs of individuals with mobility impairments and the features of the barriers they face when accessing healthcare services, especially breast imaging services. The objective of this article is to illustrate the existing barriers to breast imaging services that individuals with mobility impairments face and to provide a list of guidelines to be used in clinical practice for breast care practices and medical staff working with patients who have mobility impairments.

Objective Breast implant augmentation is the most common cosmetic surgical procedure performed in the United States. The purpose of this study was to determine if patients with breast augmentation surgery are aware of the effect of breast implants on the mammographic detection of cancer. Methods An institutional review board exempt patient awareness survey was distributed at a single breast imaging facility to women undergoing screening mammography. Comparative statistical analyses were performed between patients with and without breast implants. Results The respondents were divided into three groups: no prior breast surgery (74%; 524/711), breast surgery with implants (21%; 152/711), and breast surgery without implants (5%; 35/711). Patients with breast implants were more aware that implants decrease the amount of breast tissue seen on a mammogram (75%; 105/141) and that implants result in the need for more mammogram views (70%; 103/147), as compared with patients with no surgery (46%; 221/484 and 31%; 147/478, respectively) (P < 0.001). More women with breast implants reported learning from breast imaging staff rather than from their surgeon that implants decrease the amount of breast tissue seen on a mammogram (46%; 49/106 vs. 38%; 40/106). Of 137 respondents, 35% (n = 48) reported that the effect of implants on their mammogram was discussed preoperatively. Of those who did not recall a preoperative discussion, 42% (16/38) indicated this knowledge would have factored into their decision to get breast implants. Conclusion This study highlights an opportunity for providers to engage in more education and shared decision-making with patients considering breast augmentation surgery to ensure preoperative counseling includes discussion of the effect of implants on mammography.

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.

Objective Breast pain is a common reason for imaging evaluation; however, the limited literature available suggests a low incidence of malignancy with isolated pain. The goal of this study is to calculate the risk of cancer in patients with breast pain, and to compare to the screening mammography cancer detection rates. Methods This retrospective, institutional review board–approved study included all patients for whom a breast pain history sheet was filled out between November 3, 2013, and July 28, 2016. Those without at least two years of follow-up were excluded. From the medical record, any malignancy found at the site of pain at presentation or within two years was noted. Screening cancer detection rate was calculated from the mammography tracking software, and the Chi-square test was used to evaluate the significance of the difference between the cancer detection rates in patients with pain versus that detected by screening. Results Of 421 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 4 (1.0%) had cancer at the site of pain, with a rate of malignancy of 9.5/1000 (95% CI: 3.5/1000 to 25.2/1000). The screening cancer detection rate was 7.3/1000 (P = 0.403), which was not significantly different. All cancers occurred in patients with coexisting palpable abnormalities; none was found when pain was the only symptom. Conclusion The rate of malignancy in patients with breast pain did not differ significantly from that detected by screening mammography. In patients with isolated breast pain without a palpable abnormality, there were no cases of malignancy. Imaging patients for the sole purpose of evaluating breast pain may not be necessary.

The majority of our hereditary breast cancer genes incur not only an increased risk for breast cancer but for other malignancies as well. Knowing whether an individual carries a pathogenic variant in a hereditary breast cancer gene can affect not only screening for the patient but for his or her family members as well. Identifying and appropriately testing individuals via multigene panels allows for risk reduction and early surveillance in at-risk individuals. Radiologists can serve as first-line identifiers of women who are at risk of having an inherited predisposition to breast cancer because they are interacting with all women receiving routine screening mammograms, and collecting family history suggestive of the presence of a mutation. We outline here the 11 genes associated with high breast cancer risk discussed in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Genetic/Familial High-Risk: Breast and Ovarian (version 3.2019) as having additional breast cancer screening recommendations outside of annual mammography to serve as a guide for breast cancer screening and risk reduction, as well as recommendations for surveillance of nonbreast cancers.

Purpose To assess breast imaging radiologists’ perceptions of the adequacy of provider–patient discussions regarding the benefits and risks of screening mammography and supplemental screening in women with elevated risk and dense breasts. Methods A 36-item questionnaire developed by the Society of Breast Imaging Patient Care and Delivery Task Force was distributed electronically to Society of Breast Imaging members to evaluate patient communication, education, and screening practices. Data from the 11 items specifically pertaining to screening practices were analyzed. Results The response rate was 14% (275/1992). Seventy-four percent of survey respondents perceived provider–patient discussions regarding mammography screening guidelines as inadequate, and they agreed that provider–patient discussions regarding screening guidelines (82%) and supplemental screening for increased breast density (74%) should be standardized. Only 38% indicated that mammography screening guidelines are officially endorsed by their institution. Similarly, 37% reported that recommendations were up to the primary provider. Although most respondents include information about breast density in lay letters (73%) and radiology reports (89%), many feel that further patient education regarding breast density, supplemental screening, risk assessment, and screening guidelines should be performed by radiologists, and they are willing to provide additional patient education in these areas in practice. Conclusions Survey respondents perceived current provider–patient discussions about the risks and benefits of breast cancer mammography screening and supplemental screening as inadequate and felt that standards should be developed. Respondents reported a willingness to take on patient education as part of their daily practice. These findings could inform future initiatives for radiologists to contribute to enhancing provider–patient education.

Challenges currently facing breast radiologists, including controversial screening mammography guidelines, radiologist burnout, and the perceived threat posed by artificial intelligence could deter potential candidates from pursuing a career in radiology. However, breast radiologists play a fulfilling role by decreasing the effect of breast cancer through both early detection and direct interaction with patients and interdisciplinary clinical colleagues. While perception is that artificial intelligence will threaten the need for radiologists, it is more likely that it will improve image interpretation and efficiency in workflow, thereby further improving patient care. Trainees can be engaged in breast imaging through interactive teaching methods and by role modeling clinical and image interpretation skills.

The majority of randomized control trials and service-based screening studies of women ages 40–49 years demonstrate reductions in mortality of 29%–48% when long-term outcome is assessed. Annual screening is preferable in these younger women due to faster tumor-doubling times. Advances in mammography technique and breast ultrasound may allow even better results in the future.

Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is rapidly becoming the standard of care for breast cancer screening. Implementing DBT into practice is relatively straightforward. However, there are important elements of the transition that one must consider to facilitate this process. Understanding the Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) standard for DBT, as well as how images are displayed, is critical to a successful transition. Standardization of these processes will allow easier transmission of images from facility to facility, and limit the potential for errors in interpretation. Additionally, recent changes in federal regulations will require compliance with mandated training for the radiologist, technologist, and physicist, as well as accreditation for each DBT unit. These regulations aim to ensure high-quality imaging across the country as has been previously seen with standard digital mammography. Synthesized imaging is the most recent improvement for DBT, potentially obviating the need for a simultaneous traditional digital mammogram exposure. Studies have demonstrated near equivalent performance when comparing the combination imaging of DBT and digital mammography versus DBT combined with synthetic imaging. As the quality of the synthetic images continues to improve, it is increasingly likely that it will replace the traditional mammogram. Adherence to DBT-specific parameters will enhance the physician experience and ultimately translate to increased cancer detection and fewer false positive examinations, benefiting all women who are screened for breast cancer.

Objective To assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on breast imaging facilities’ operations and recovery efforts across North America. Methods A survey on breast imaging facilities’ operations and strategies for recovery during the COVID-19 pandemic was distributed to the membership of the Society of Breast Imaging and National Consortium of Breast Centers from June 4, 2020, to July 14, 2020. A descriptive summary of responses was performed. Comparisons were made between demographic variables of respondents and questions of interest using a Pearson chi-square test. Results There were 473 survey respondents (response rate of 13%). The majority of respondents (70%; 332/473) reported 80%–100% breast imaging volume reduction, with 94% (447/473) reporting postponement of screening mammography. The majority of respondents (97%; 457/473) continued to perform biopsies. There were regional differences in safety measures taken for staff (P = 0.004), with practices in the West more likely reporting no changes in the work environment compared to other regions. The most common changes to patients’ experience included spacing out of furniture in waiting rooms (94%; 445/473), limiting visitors (91%; 430/473), and spacing out appointments (83%). A significantly higher proportion of practices in the Northeast (95%; 104/109) initiated patient scheduling changes compared to other regions (P = 0.004). Conclusion COVID-19 had an acute impact on breast imaging facilities. Although common national operational patterns emerged, geographic variability was notable in particular in recovery efforts. These findings may inform future best practices for delivering breast imaging care amid the ongoing and geographically shifting COVID-19 pandemic.

JAMA network open 4(8), e2121492 (2021). doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.21492, Published by American Medical Association, Chicago, Ill.

Introduction Serbian screening mammography programs target women 50-69 years with biennial screening. Methods Research was conducted as a cross-sectional study on a sample of 2784 women aged 50-69 years in Serbia, as a part of the Health Survey in Serbia, 2013. The association between the socio-demographic determinants as independent variables, and mammography screening (within the past 2 years) as dependent variable were examined using univariate and binary logistic regression. Multivariate model were adjusted for marital status, education, employment status, DHS Wealth Index, type of settlement and self-perceived health. The minimum level of significance was p Results Only 22.2% of women aged 50-69 have done mammograms within the past 2 years in Serbia. In binary logistic regression model as predictors for a mammogram were singled out level of education, wealth index and self-perceived health. Women with medium level of education have 1.4 times higher chance to perform a mammogram in relation to those with low education (OR = 1.4; 95%CI 1.12-1-80), while women with high level of education have 1.8 times higher chance to do a mammogram in relation to those with low education (OR = 1.8; 95%CI 1.33-2.58). Women with good financial situation were 1.4 times more likely to perform a mammogram in relation to those with poor financial situation (OR = 1.4; 95%CI 1.05-1.80). Women who perceived their health as well have 26% less chance to do a mammogram compared to those who perceived their health as a poor (OR = 0.74; 95%CI 0.56-0.97). Conclusions This study showed the disparity in the prevalence of mammography utilization. The predictors for mammogram performance among women were: high level of education, high wealth index and self-perceived health as poor. Key messages The only breast cancer screening test that has been proven effective in organized, population-based programs is mammography screening. Screening mammography reduces the risk of death due to breast cancer. It is useful for detecting all types of breast cancer, including invasive ductal and invasive lobular cancer.

This study uses Blue Cross Blue Shield Axis data to examine the total annual cost of breast cancer screening for women aged 40 through 49 years in the United States.

This diagnostic accuracy study evaluates whether artificial intelligence can overcome human mammography interpretation limits with a rigorous, unbiased evaluation of machine learning algorithms., Key Points Question How do deep learning algorithms perform compared with radiologists in screening mammography interpretation? Findings In this diagnostic accuracy study using 144 231 screening mammograms from 85 580 women from the United States and 166 578 screening mammograms from 68 008 women from Sweden, no single artificial intelligence algorithm outperformed US community radiologist benchmarks; including clinical data and prior mammograms did not improve artificial intelligence performance. However, combining best-performing artificial intelligence algorithms with single-radiologist assessment demonstrated increased specificity. Meaning Integrating artificial intelligence to mammography interpretation in single-radiologist settings could yield significant performance improvements, with the potential to reduce health care system expenditures and address resource scarcity experienced in population-based screening programs., Importance Mammography screening currently relies on subjective human interpretation. Artificial intelligence (AI) advances could be used to increase mammography screening accuracy by reducing missed cancers and false positives. Objective To evaluate whether AI can overcome human mammography interpretation limitations with a rigorous, unbiased evaluation of machine learning algorithms. Design, Setting, and Participants In this diagnostic accuracy study conducted between September 2016 and November 2017, an international, crowdsourced challenge was hosted to foster AI algorithm development focused on interpreting screening mammography. More than 1100 participants comprising 126 teams from 44 countries participated. Analysis began November 18, 2016. Main Outcomes and Measurements Algorithms used images alone (challenge 1) or combined images, previous examinations (if available), and clinical and demographic risk factor data (challenge 2) and output a score that translated to cancer yes/no within 12 months. Algorithm accuracy for breast cancer detection was evaluated using area under the curve and algorithm specificity compared with radiologists’ specificity with radiologists’ sensitivity set at 85.9% (United States) and 83.9% (Sweden). An ensemble method aggregating top-performing AI algorithms and radiologists’ recall assessment was developed and evaluated. Results Overall, 144 231 screening mammograms from 85 580 US women (952 cancer positive ≤12 months from screening) were used for algorithm training and validation. A second independent validation cohort included 166 578 examinations from 68 008 Swedish women (780 cancer positive). The top-performing algorithm achieved an area under the curve of 0.858 (United States) and 0.903 (Sweden) and 66.2% (United States) and 81.2% (Sweden) specificity at the radiologists’ sensitivity, lower than community-practice radiologists’ specificity of 90.5% (United States) and 98.5% (Sweden). Combining top-performing algorithms and US radiologist assessments resulted in a higher area under the curve of 0.942 and achieved a significantly improved specificity (92.0%) at the same sensitivity. Conclusions and Relevance While no single AI algorithm outperformed radiologists, an ensemble of AI algorithms combined with radiologist assessment in a single-reader screening environment improved overall accuracy. This study underscores the potential of using machine learning methods for enhancing mammography screening interpretation.

This cohort study characterizes changes in breast cancer screening costs as digital breast tomosynthesis has been adopted at both the patient and population levels.

Scientific controversies on breast cancer screening have induced the French authorities to launch online citizen consultation. The objective of this netnography was to identify the knowledge and values underlying contributors’ choices. The choice of supporters was often based on emotions: impression of disease severity and efficacy of screening, fearfulness stemming from personal experience and testimony from relatives. Opponents emphasized the risks of the screening and the doctors’ perceived lack of relational and technical skills. The ‘non-decision’ profile was explained by information deemed simplistic, guilt-inducing and partial. Future research should focus on how to appeal to emotions to support shared decision.

This cohort study used data from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium to examine associations between incidence of invasive breast cancer and breast density, body mass index, and age among women aged 65 years or older., Key Points Question Is breast density associated with invasive breast cancer among women aged 65 years or older, and does body mass index (BMI) modify any associations between breast density and breast cancer risk? Findings In this cohort study of 221 714 screening mammograms among 193 787 US women aged 65 years or older, heterogeneous or extreme breast density vs scattered fibroglandular density was associated with an increased risk of invasive breast cancer among women aged 65 to 74 years and among those aged 75 years or older with a BMI of 25 or higher. No interaction between BMI and breast density was found in either age group. Meaning The findings suggest that breast density is associated with an increased risk of invasive breast cancer among women aged 65 years or older., Importance Breast density is associated with breast cancer risk in women aged 40 to 65 years, but there is limited evidence of its association with risk of breast cancer among women aged 65 years or older. Objective To compare the association between breast density and risk of invasive breast cancer among women aged 65 to 74 years vs women aged 75 years or older and to evaluate whether the association is modified by body mass index (BMI). Design, Setting, and Participants This prospective cohort study used data from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium from January 1, 1996, to December 31, 2012, for US women aged 65 years or older who underwent screening mammography. Data were analyzed from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2020. Exposures Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System breast density category, age, and BMI. Main Outcomes and Measures The 5-year cumulative incidence of invasive breast cancer by level of breast density (almost entirely fat, scattered fibroglandular densities, or heterogeneous or extreme density) and age (65-74 vs ≥75 years) was calculated using weighted means. Cox proportional hazards models were fit to estimate the association of breast density with invasive breast cancer risk. The likelihood ratio test was used to test the interaction between BMI and breast density. Results A total of 221 714 screening mammograms from 193 787 women were included in the study; a total of 38% of the study population was aged 75 years or older. Of the mammograms, most were from women aged 65 to 74 years (64.6%) and non-Hispanic White individuals (81.4%). The 5-year cumulative incidence of invasive breast cancer increased in association with increasing breast density among women aged 65 to 74 years (almost entirely fatty breasts: 11.3 per 1000 women [95% CI, 10.4-12.5 per 1000 women]; scattered fibroglandular densities: 17.2 per 1000 women [95% CI, 16.1-17.9 per 1000 women]; extremely or heterogeneously dense breasts: 23.7 per 1000 women [95% CI, 22.4-25.3 per 1000 women]) and among those aged 75 years or older (fatty breasts: 13.5 per 1000 women [95% CI, 11.6-15.5]; scattered fibroglandular densities: 18.4 per 1000 women [95% CI, 17.0-19.5 per 1000 women]; extremely or heterogeneously dense breasts: 22.5 per 1000 women [95% CI, 20.2-24.2 per 1000 women]). Extreme or heterogeneous breast density was associated with increased risk of breast cancer compared with scattered fibroglandular breast density in both age categories (65-74 years: hazard ratio [HR], 1.39 [95% CI, 1.28-1.50]; ≥75 years: HR, 1.23 [95% CI, 1.10-1.37]). Women with almost entirely fatty breasts had a decrease of approximately 30% (range, 27%-34%) in the risk of invasive breast cancer compared with women with scattered fibroglandular breast density (65-74 years: HR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.58-0.75]; ≥75 years: HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.62-0.86). Associations between breast density and breast cancer risk were not significantly modified by BMI (for age 65-74 years: likelihood ratio test, 2.67; df, 2; P = .26; for age ≥75 years, 2.06; df, 2; P = .36). Conclusions and Relevance The findings suggest that breast density is associated with increased risk of invasive breast cancer among women aged 65 years or older. Breast density and life expectancy should be considered together when discussing the potential benefits vs harms of continued screening mammography in this population.

This cross-sectional study evaluates the out-of-pocket costs of diagnostic breast imaging services incurred by commercially insured women who underwent additional imaging evaluation and procedures after screening mammography.

This cohort study investigates the rates of breast cancer screening before and during the COVID-19 pandemic among women in Washington State.

This cross-sectional study examines current screening mammography recommendations regarding starting age and screening interval among breast cancer centers in the US.