Comparison of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography With Conventional Digital Mammography in Breast Cancer Screening: A Pilot Study

PurposeTo perform a pilot evaluation of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) for screening to determine whether it can improve accuracy and reader confidence in diagnosis.Methods and MaterialsThis institutional review board–approved reader study was comprised of 64 de-identified CEM cases acquired from December 1, 2014, to June 7, 2016, including 48 negative, 5 biopsy-proven benign, and 11 biopsy-proven malignancies. Negative cases were followed for at least 2 years without evidence of cancer. Ten breast imagers of varying experience first rated the low-energy (LE) mammogram and then the CEM examination using BI-RADS categories and a 5-point Likert scale for confidence in diagnosis.ResultsThere were 635 out a total possible 640 complete reader interpretations included in this analysis. The remaining five incomplete interpretations were excluded. Median sensitivity and specificity improved with the addition of CEM (sensitivity: 0.86 [95% confidence interval {CI}: 0.74-0.95] versus 1 [95% CI: 0.83-1.00], specificity: 0.85 [95% CI: 0.64-0.94] versus 0.88 [95% CI: 0.80-0.92]). Individual receiver operating characteristic curves showed significant improvement with CEM (mean area under the curve increase = 0.056 [95% CI: 0.015-0.097], P = .002). The addition of CEM significantly improved average confidence in 5 of 10 readers when compared with LE (P < .0001) and improved pooled confidence across all tissue density categories, except the almost entirely fatty category. There was a trend toward improved confidence with increasing tissue density with CEM. Degree of background parenchymal enhancement did not affect readers’ level of improvement in confidence when interpreting CEM.SummaryCEM improved reader performance and confidence compared with viewing only LE, suggesting a role for CEM in breast cancer screening for which larger trials are warranted.     

Leveraging the Mammography Setting to Raise Awareness and Facilitate Referral to Lung Cancer Screening: A Qualitative Analysis

PurposeDespite compelling support for the benefits of low-dose CT (LDCT) screening for lung cancer among high-risk individuals, awareness of LDCT screening and uptake remain low. The aim of this project was to explore the perspectives of ACR mammography screening program directors (MPDs) regarding efforts to raise LDCT screening awareness and appropriate referrals by identifying high-risk individuals participating in routine mammography.MethodsMPDs were recruited from ACR-accredited mammography facilities to participate in semistructured interviews after the completion of an online survey. Interviews were conducted over the telephone, recorded, transcribed, and subsequently reviewed for accuracy. Twenty MPDs were interviewed, and 18 interviews were transcribed and included in the thematic analysis. A theme codebook was developed, and all interviews were coded using NVivo by two trained reviewers.ResultsKey themes were organized into four broad domains: (1) general attitudes toward the integration of LDCT screening, (2) identifying mammography patients at high risk for lung cancer, (3) counseling about LDCT screening, and (4) strategies to identify high-risk women and increase awareness and knowledge of LDCT screening. Overall, MPDs recognized the benefits of integrating mammography and LDCT screening and were receptive to educating and referring women for LDCT screening. However, training and workflow changes are needed to ensure successful implementation.ConclusionsQualitative data suggest that MPDs are amenable to leveraging the mammography setting to engage women about LDCT screening; however, additional tools, training, and/or staffing may be necessary to leverage the full potential of reaching women at high risk for lung cancer within the context of mammographic screening.     

Thoracic and Extrathoracic Malignancies in Lung Cancer Screening Patients With Histories of Malignancy

PurposeThe objective of this study was to assess whether a history of malignancy affects the incidence of extrathoracic malignancies and lung cancer in patients undergoing CT lung cancer screening (LCS).MethodsAll patients who underwent a LCS CT between June 2014 and August 2018 in a single health care system were included. History of prior nonskin malignancy was extracted from billing records. Subsequent diagnoses of malignancy were extracted from clinical pathology reports. Risk for subsequent malignancy was compared between patients with and those without prior malignancy and evaluated using multivariate logistic regression including age and history of malignancy.ResultsA total of 5,835 LCS CT studies were included, and 1,243 (21%) were performed on patients with diagnoses of malignancy before CT. For the 4,592 scans performed on patients without histories of malignancy, 87 patients (1.9%) were diagnosed with lung cancer and 68 (1.5%) were diagnosed with nonlung malignancies in the following year. Among patients with histories of malignancy, 17 (1.4%) were diagnosed with lung cancer, and 25 (2%) were diagnosed with nonlung malignancies. Logistic regression for subsequent diagnosis of malignancy (including lung cancer) demonstrated age to be predictive, with an odds ratio of 1.6 per decade (P < .0001); history of malignancy was not predictive of subsequent malignancy (P = .50).ConclusionsPatients with histories of malignancy referred for LCS have a similar risk for developing lung cancers and extrathoracic malignancies as patients without histories of malignancy. Patients with histories of malignancy who are believed by their referring providers to be at low risk for metastasis should not be excluded from LCS.     

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

PurposeMillions 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.MethodsWomen 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.ResultsAmong 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.ConclusionsThe 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.     

Education Level Predicts Appropriate Follow-Up of Incidental Findings From Lung Cancer Screening

PurposeThe aim of this study was to identify predictors of appropriate follow-up for clinically significant incidental findings (IFs) detected with low-dose CT during lung cancer screening.MethodsCharts of 1,458 prospectively enrolled lung screening patients from January 1, 2015, to October 31, 2018, were reviewed. IFs, other than coronary artery calcification and emphysema, were identified. ACR practice guidelines defined appropriate patient follow-up. Patient demographic and social characteristics were obtained from the initial shared decision-making visit and the electronic medical record. Factors of interest included age, gender, race, education level, and insurance status. Education level was reported as high school graduate or less or education past high school. A multivariate logistic regression was estimated to assess patient factors associated with appropriate follow-up.ResultsOne hundred thirty-eight participants (9%) with 141 actionable IFs were identified. The overall appropriate follow-up rate was 82%. The most common IFs were renal lesions (16%), dilated thoracic aorta (10%), and pulmonary fibrosis (10%). Univariate analysis of appropriate patient follow-up revealed a significant difference for education level (P = .02). A greater than high school education remained strongly associated with appropriate follow-up after controlling for other demographic factors.ConclusionsAppropriate patient follow-up of clinically significant IFs from lung cancer screening is a well-recognized avenue to improve population health. Education level is a significant independent predictor of appropriate follow-up of IFs, whether as a surrogate for low socioeconomic status or as an indication of health literacy. To address these realities, lung screening shared decision making should adapt to consider health care access and health literacy.     

Mammography Clinical Image Quality and the False Positive Rate in a Canadian Breast Cancer Screening Program

Purpose

The study sought to determine if mammography quality is associated with the false positive (FP) rate in the Quebec breast cancer screening program in 2004 and 2005.

Baseline Mammography: What Is It and Why Is It Important? A Cross-Sectional Survey of Women Undergoing Screening Mammography

Objectives

Studies have shown that having a baseline mammogram, the first screening mammogram, available for comparison at the time of interpreting a subsequent mammogram significantly decreases the potential of a false-positive examination. Our aim was to evaluate knowledge of and perception about the significance of baseline mammograms in those women undergoing screening mammography.

Patient and Radiologist Demographics Influence Perceptions of Screening Mammography Reports

PurposeThe aim of this study was to test whether patient and radiologist demographics influence perceptions of screening mammography reports and the interpreting radiologist.MethodsPatients presenting for breast imaging were surveyed. Demographics were collected, and each participant was shown five mock screening mammography reports with BI-RADS category 2 findings, each with a recommendation for 1-year screening. Each report included a picture of the interpreting radiologist, who was Black or White and male or female. Participants answered seven questions, on a Likert-type scale, about understanding, satisfaction, and trust in the report and radiologist. Generalized estimating equation ordinal logistic regression compared responses on the basis of participant and radiologist demographics.ResultsA total of 178 women participated, with a mean age of 55.1 ± 10.2 years. Most participants self-identified as White (71%) or Black (20%) and non-Hispanic (98%), with broad educational representation (28% with bachelor’s degrees and 28% with master’s degrees). After controlling for demographics, Black participants reported greater agreement regarding trust in the report’s finding (P = .037) if the radiologist was also Black. Black participants were less likely to be satisfied in the report quality (P = .043). Additionally, participants without any college education reported lower agreement that they were satisfied with the report quality (P = .020) and felt the radiologist cares about his or her patients (P = .037). There were no significant associations for radiologist sex or participant age.ConclusionsParticipant perceptions of screening mammography reports and the interpreting radiologist can be influenced by participant and provider race as well as participant education. These findings could have implications for mammography adherence, breast radiologist recruitment, and developing patient-centric reports.     

Geographic Access to CT for Lung Cancer Screening: A Census Tract-Level Analysis of Cigarette Smoking in the United States and Driving Distance to a CT Facility

Purpose

Spatial access to health care resources is a requisite for utilization. Our purpose was to determine, at a census tract level, the geographic distribution of US smokers and their driving distance to an ACR-accredited CT facility.

Assessing the Impact of Incidental Findings in a Lung Cancer Screening Study by Using Low-dose Computed Tomography

Purpose

To assess the prevalence and nature of incidental findings (IF) seen in low-dose computed tomographies (LDCT) from a lung cancer screening study for at-risk individuals.

Materials and Methods

Radiology reports from LDCTs of 4073 participants of a lung cancer screening study were retrospectively reviewed for findings other than lung nodules, that is, IFs, which were regarded as actionable. The frequency, nature, and expected cost of these IFs, and their anticipated follow-up were estimated.

Results

There were 880 IFs described in 782 study participants (19%); the median age of the participants was 62 years (range, 46-80 years). More IFs were found in men (55%) than in women. The majority of these findings were noncardiovascular (76%), for which imaging was suggested for 74%. There were 7 severe IFs (0.8%) that merited immediate attention. Seven known cancers were diagnosed from follow-ups of the IFs. The majority of IFs (n = 486 [55%]) would require imaging follow-up if clinically indicated, with an estimated total a cost of CAN$45,500 to CAN$51,000 to provide initial diagnostic workup.

Conclusion

IFs on lung cancer screening studies are not uncommon and frequently require imaging or other follow-up for definitive diagnoses and to assess their clinical relevance. The implication of IFs has to be considered when determining a cost-effective and ethical protocol for the utilisation of LDCT in a high-risk population.     

Feasibility and Acceptability of a Collaborative Lung Cancer Screening Educational Intervention Tailored for Individuals With Serious Mental Illness

PurposeIndividuals with serious mental illness (SMI) experience disparities in lung cancer mortality. Using a two-phase, mixed-methods approach, we developed a person-centered lung cancer screening (LCS) educational intervention (phase 1) for individuals with SMI (schizophrenia and bipolar disorder) and evaluated acceptability, feasibility, and changes in attitudes toward LCS (phase 2).MethodsPhase 1: We conducted three focus groups with mental health, primary care, and radiology clinicians and utilized rapid qualitative analysis to adapt the LCS intervention (LCS walk-through video and smoking cessation handouts) tailored for individuals with SMI. Phase 2: We enrolled LCS-eligible patients with SMI (n = 15) and assessed the feasibility (>50% enrollment; >75% completion) and acceptability (>75% overall satisfaction) of an LCS educational intervention delivered by a radiologist and a mental health clinician at a community mental health clinic. We explored changes in participant attitudes about lung cancer, LCS, and smoking before and after the intervention.ResultsPhase 1: Focus groups with primary care (n = 5), radiologists (n = 9), and mental health clinicians (n = 6) recommended person-centered language and adapting a video demonstrating the process of LCS to address concerns specific to SMI, including paranoia and concrete thinking. Phase 2: Fifty percent (15 of 30) of eligible patients enrolled in the LCS intervention, 100% (15 of 15) completed the intervention, and 93% (14 of 15) were satisfied with the intervention. Participants reported a significantly greater worry about developing lung cancer postintervention, but there were no other significant differences.ConclusionsRadiologists can partner with primary care and community mental health clinics to lead equity efforts in LCS among individuals with SMI.     

Repeat Annual Lung Cancer Screening After Baseline Screening Among Screen-Negative Individuals: No-Cost Coverage Is Not Enough

PurposeAdherence to lung cancer screening (LCS) is central to effective screening. The authors evaluated the likelihood of repeat annual LCS in a national commercially insured population and associations with individual characteristics, insurance characteristics, and annual out-of-pocket cost (OOPC) burden.MethodsUsing claims data from an employer-insured population (Clinformatics), individuals 55 to 80 years of age undergoing LCS between January 1, 2015, to September 30, 2019, with “negative” LCS were included. Repeat LCS was defined as low-dose chest CT occurring 10 to 15 months after the preceding LCS. Analysis was conducted over a 6-year period. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate associations between repeat LCS and individual characteristics, insurance characteristics, and total OOPC incurred by the individual in the year of the index LCS, even if unrelated to LCS.ResultsOf 14,943 individuals with negative LCS, 4,561 (30.5%) underwent repeat LCS. Likelihood of repeat LCS was decreased for men (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.86-0.97), Hispanic ethnicity (aOR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69-0.97), and indemnity insurance plans (aOR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.25-0.53). Relative to New England, individuals in nearly all US geographic regions were less likely to undergo repeat LCS. Finally, individuals with total OOPC in the highest two quartiles were less likely to undergo repeat LCS (aOR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.77-0.92] for OOPC >$1,069.02-$2,475.09 vs $0-$351.82; aOR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.68-0.82] for OOPC >$2,475.09 vs $0-$351.82).ConclusionsAlthough federal policies facilitate LCS without cost sharing, individuals incurring high OOPC, even when unrelated to LCS, are less likely to undergo repeat LCS. Future policy design should consider the permeative burden of OOPC across the health continuum on preventive services use.     

Outcomes by Race in Breast Cancer Screening With Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Versus Digital Mammography

PurposeDigital 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.MethodsRetrospective 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.ResultsA 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.ConclusionsAll 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.     

Predictors of Lung Cancer Screening Utilization in a Population-Based Survey

PurposeAnnual low-dose CT (LDCT) screening in high-risk individuals has been recommended to detect lung cancer earlier and reduce mortality. The objective of this study was to identify demographic, financial, and health care factors associated with screening uptake in a population-based survey.MethodsData from the Lung Cancer Screening Module and core modules of the 2017 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, a population-based survey administered via cell phone and landline, were analyzed to examine demographic, health, and financial factors associated with screening uptake among the 10 states that administered the screening module. Weighted frequencies and confidence intervals (CIs) were produced, and weighted Wald χ² tests were used to compare differences in screening utilization by patient characteristics. A multivariate logistic mixed-effects model was constructed, in which participant clustering by state was accounted for with a random intercept.ResultsThe uninsured were less likely to undergo LDCT screening (odds ratio [OR], 0.28; 95% CI, 0.12-0.65). LDCT screening uptake was higher for participants with chronic respiratory conditions (OR, 4.14; 95% CI, 2.33-7.35); those who were divorced, separated, widowed, or refused to answer (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.05-1.86); those who had previous cancer diagnoses (OR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.40-2.56); and those aged 65 to 69 years (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.06-1.44) or 70 to 74 years (OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.00-1.37). Utilization also varied significantly across states.ConclusionsHaving a related health condition whereby participants were sensitized to the benefits of early screening (ie, another cancer diagnosis, presence of chronic respiratory conditions) and having insurance coverage were associated with higher LDCT screening uptake. Providers should engage LDCT-eligible patients through informed and shared decision making to increase preference-sensitive screening decisions.     

Current Guidelines and Gaps in Breast Cancer Screening

Breast cancer is the most common nonskin cancer in women and the second leading cause of cancer death for women in the United States. Mammography screening is proven to significantly decrease breast cancer mortality, with a 40% or more reduction expected with annual use starting at age 40 for women of average risk. However, less than half of all eligible women have a mammogram annually. The elimination of cost sharing for screening made possible by the Affordable Care Act (2010) encouraged screening but mainly for those already insured. The United States Preventive Services Task Force 2009 guidelines recommended against screening those 40 to 49 years old and have left women over 74 years of age vulnerable to coverage loss. Other populations for whom significant gaps in risk information or screening use exist, including women of lower socioeconomic status, black women, men at higher than average risk of breast cancer, and sexual and gender minorities. Further work is needed to achieve higher rates of screening acceptance for all appropriate individuals so that the full mortality and treatment benefits of mammography screening can be realized.     

Breast Cancer Screening Recommendations Inclusive of All Women at Average Risk: Update from the ACR and Society of Breast Imaging

Breast cancer remains the most common nonskin cancer, the second leading cause of cancer deaths, and the leading cause of premature death in US women. Mammography screening has been proven effective in reducing breast cancer deaths in women age 40 years and older. A mortality reduction of 40% is possible with regular screening. Treatment advances cannot overcome the disadvantage of being diagnosed with an advanced-stage tumor. The ACR and Society of Breast Imaging recommend annual mammography screening beginning at age 40, which provides the greatest mortality reduction, diagnosis at earlier stage, better surgical options, and more effective chemotherapy. Annual screening results in more screening-detected tumors, tumors of smaller sizes, and fewer interval cancers than longer screening intervals. Screened women in their 40s are more likely to have early-stage disease, negative lymph nodes, and smaller tumors than unscreened women. Delaying screening until age 45 or 50 will result in an unnecessary loss of life to breast cancer and adversely affects minority women in particular. Screening should continue past age 74 years, without an upper age limit unless severe comorbidities limit life expectancy. Benefits of screening should be considered along with the possibilities of recall for additional imaging and benign biopsy and the less tangible risks of anxiety and overdiagnosis. Although recall and biopsy recommendations are higher with more frequent screening, so are life-years gained and breast cancer deaths averted. Women who wish to maximize benefit will choose annual screening starting at age 40 years and will not stop screening prematurely.     

Current Gaps in Breast Cancer Screening Among Asian and Asian American Women in the United States

Over the past two decades, the US Asian population has increased 72%, representing the fastest growth rate of any major racial group. Currently, there are over 20 million Asian and Asian American women in the United States, who identify with at least 1 of 19 different origin groups. Although women of Asian ancestry have traditionally been considered low risk for experiencing adverse breast cancer-specific outcomes, aggregated data may mask health disparities seen among subgroups. In the United States, recent data demonstrate that the burden of breast cancer among Asian women has increased each year over the past decade. We aim to characterize challenges faced by Asian and Asian American women in the United States related to cultural stigma, socioeconomic status, and overall access to breast cancer care. An increased understanding of barriers to breast cancer prevention and treatment efforts is needed to develop more effective strategies aimed at reducing disparities in care among segments of this heterogenous population.