Improving State-Mandated Breast Density Notifications

PurposeEffective written communication directly affects health care outcomes. Since 2016, the complex language of state-mandated breast density notifications (BDNs) has been challenged, because it is perceived to be beyond the comprehension of most patients. The aim of this study was to assess whether a revised BDN written at a lower reading grade level improves understanding compared with the current state-mandated BDN.MethodsA revised notification with similar content to the current state-mandated BDN was developed. Both notifications were presented to patients for direct comparison, using a paper survey asking questions that evaluated patients’ perceptions and convictions associated with breast density. Surveys were distributed at four outpatient imaging centers to screening mammography patients.ResultsThe current BDN’s mean readability metric was 13.4, and that of the revised BDN was 6.6. Five hundred surveys were analyzed. Survey data demonstrated that 56.6% of all women perceived that dense breast tissue results indicated a “high” associated lifetime breast cancer risk from the current state-mandated BDN compared with only 2.2% with the revised notification (P < .001). Nearly all women were more likely to initiate discussions with their providers regarding their breast tissue density after reading the revised notification (96.0%) as opposed to the current state-mandated BDN (32.8%; P < .001).ConclusionsA significant portion of women misinterpret the intended messages of the current state-mandated BDN. Thus, a revised notification at a lower reading grade level may improve understanding of breast density, leading to improved individualized breast cancer screening for women with dense breasts.     

Patient Awareness of Breast Density and Interest in Supplemental Screening Tests: Comparison of an Academic Facility and a County Hospital

PurposeThe aim of this study was to measure women’s knowledge of breast density and their attitudes toward supplemental screening tests in the setting of the California Breast Density Notification Law at an academic facility and a county hospital, serving women with higher and lower socioeconomic status, respectively.MethodsInstitutional review board exemptions were obtained. A survey was administered during screening mammography at two facilities, assessing women’s awareness of and interest in knowing their breast density and interest in and willingness to pay for supplemental whole breast ultrasound and contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CEMG). The results were compared by using Fisher exact tests between groups.ResultsA total of 105 of 130 and 132 of 153 women responded to the survey at the academic and county facilities, respectively. Among respondents at the academic and county facilities, 23% and 5% were aware of their breast density, and 94% and 79% wanted to know their density. A majority were interested in supplemental ultrasonography and CEMG at both sites; however, fewer women had a willingness to pay for the supplemental tests at the county hospital compared with those at the academic facility (22% and 70%, respectively, for ultrasound, P < .0001; 20% and 65%, respectively, for CEMG, P < .0001).ConclusionsBoth groups of women were interested in knowing their breast density and in supplemental screening tests. However, women at the county hospital were less willing to incur out-of-pocket expenses, suggesting a potential for a disparity in health care access for women of lower socioeconomic status after the enactment of breast density notification legislation.     

Breast Density Awareness,Knowledge, and Attitudes Among US Women: National Survey Results Across 5 Years

PurposeTo assess changes in breast density (BD) awareness, knowledge, and attitudes among US women over a period of 5 years.MethodsUsing a probability-based web panel representative of the US population, we administered an identical BD survey in 2012 and 2017 to women aged 40 to 74 years.ResultsIn 2017, 65.8% had heard of BD (versus 57.5% in 2012; P = .0002). BD awareness in both 2012 and 2017 was significantly associated with race, income, and education. Among women aware of BD in 2017, 76.5% had knowledge of BD’s relationship to masking (versus 71.5% in 2012; P = .04); 65.5% had knowledge of BD’s relationship to cancer risk (versus 58.5%; P = .009); and 47.3% had discussed BD with a provider (versus 43.1% in 2012; P = .13). After multivariable adjustment, residence in a state with BD legislation was associated in 2017 with knowledge of BD’s relationship to risk but not to masking. Most women wanted to know their BD (62.5% in 2017 versus 59.8% in 2012; P = .46); this information was anticipated to cause anxiety in 44.8% (versus 44.9% in 2012; P = .96); confusion in 35.9% (versus 43.0%; P = .002); and feeling informed in 89.7% (versus 90.4%; P = .64). Over three-quarters supported federal BD legislation in both surveys. Response rate to the 2017 survey was 55% (1,502 of 2,730) versus 65% (1,506 of 2,311) in 2012.ConclusionAlthough BD awareness has increased, important disparities persist. Knowledge of BD’s impact on risk has increased; knowledge about masking and BD discussions with providers have not. Most women want to know their BD, would not feel anxious or confused as a result of knowing, and would feel empowered to make decisions. The federal BD notification legislation presents an opportunity to improve awareness and knowledge and encourage BD conversations with providers.     

Between-Race Differences in Supplemental Breast Cancer Screening Before and After Breast Density Notification Law

Guidelines recommend supplemental breast cancer screening for women at increased breast cancer risk; however, the passage of breast density notification laws may lead to supplemental screening that is incongruent with women’s risk. We examined supplemental screening (ie, MRI, ultrasound, or tomosynthesis within 6 months of screening mammogram) among a sample of 2,764 African American (AA) and 691 European American (EA) women with negative or benign screening mammograms for whom we had data from both before and after implementation of breast density notification laws in the state of Michigan. Results indicated a 5-fold increase (from 0.14% to 0.7% of women) in supplemental screening among screen-negative women after passage of the law, driven in large part by an increase in supplemental screening among AA women. Breast density was more predictive of supplemental screening and had a marginally greater explanatory role in between-race differences in supplemental screening after passage of the law. Subgroup analyses (n = 250) indicated that whereas 5-year breast cancer risk was positively associated with supplemental screening before the law and negatively associated after the law for EA women, 5-year risk was not associated with supplemental screening either before or after passage of the law for AA women. Our findings suggest that whereas passage of the breast density notification laws may have motivated supplemental screening among AA women in particular, it lessened the consideration of breast cancer risk in supplemental screening decision making.     

Digital Breast Tomosynthesis versus MRI as an Adjunct to Full-Field Digital Mammography for Preoperative Evaluation of Breast Cancer according to Mammographic Density

ObjectiveTo compare digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and MRI as an adjunct to full-field digital mammography (FFDM) for the preoperative evaluation of women with breast cancer based on mammographic density.Materials and MethodsThis retrospective study enrolled 280 patients with breast cancer who had undergone FFDM, DBT, and MRI for preoperative local tumor staging. Three radiologists independently sought the index cancer and additional ipsilateral and contralateral breast cancers using either FFDM alone, DBT plus FFDM, or MRI plus FFDM. Diagnostic performances across the three radiologists were compared among the reading modes in all patients and subgroups with dense (n = 186) and non-dense breasts (n = 94) according to mammographic density.ResultsOf 280 patients, 46 (16.4%) had 48 additional (39 ipsilateral and nine contralateral) cancers in addition to the index cancer. For index cancers, both DBT plus FFDM and MRI plus FFDM showed sensitivities of 100% in the non-dense group. In the dense group, DBT plus FFDM showed lower sensitivity than that of MRI plus FFDM (94.6% vs. 99.6%, p < 0.001). For additional ipsilateral cancers, DBT plus FFDM showed specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) of 100% in the non-dense group, but sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV) were not statistically different from those of MRI plus FFDM (p > 0.05). In the dense group, DBT plus FFDM showed higher specificity (98.2% vs. 94.1%, p = 0.005) and PPV (83.1% vs. 65.4%; p = 0.036) than those of MRI plus FFDM, but lower sensitivity (59.9% vs. 75.3%; p = 0.049). For contralateral cancers, DBT plus FFDM showed higher specificity than that of MRI plus FFDM (99.0% vs. 96.7%, p = 0.014), however, the other values did not differ (all p > 0.05) in the dense group.ConclusionDBT plus FFDM showed an overall higher specificity than that of MRI plus FFDM regardless of breast density, perhaps without substantial loss in sensitivity and NPV in the diagnosis of additional cancers. Thus, DBT may have the potential to be used as a preoperative breast cancer staging tool.     

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.     

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

ObjectiveLegislation in 38 states requires patient notification of dense mammographic breast tissue because increased density is a marker of breast cancer risk and can limit mammographic sensitivity. Because radiologist density assessments vary widely, our objective was to implement and measure the impact of a deep learning (DL) model on mammographic breast density assessments in clinical practice.MethodsThis institutional review board–approved prospective study identified consecutive screening mammograms performed across three clinical sites over two periods: 2017 period (January 1, 2017, through September 30, 2017) and 2019 period (January 1, 2019, through September 30, 2019). The DL model was implemented at sites A (academic practice) and B (community practice) in 2018 for all screening mammograms. Site C (community practice) was never exposed to the DL model. Prospective densities were evaluated, and multivariable logistic regression models evaluated the odds of a dense mammogram classification as a function of time and site.ResultsWe identified 85,124 consecutive screening mammograms across the three sites. Across time intervals, odds of a dense classification decreased at sites exposed to the DL model, site A (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.86-0.99; P = .024) and site B (aOR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.70-0.93]; P = .003), and odds increased at the site unexposed to the model (site C) (aOR, 1.13 [95% CI, 1.01-1.27]; P = .033).DiscussionA DL model reduces the odds of screening mammograms categorized as dense. Accurate density assessments could help health care systems more appropriately use limited supplemental screening resources and help better inform traditional clinical risk models.     

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.     

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.

Impact of the California Breast Density Law on Primary Care Physicians

PurposeTo investigate primary physician awareness of the California Breast Density Notification Law and its impact on primary care practice.MethodsAn online survey was distributed to 174 physicians within a single primary care network system 10 months after California’s breast density notification law took effect. The survey assessed physicians’ awareness of the law, perceived changes in patient levels of concern about breast density, and physician comfort levels in handling breast density management issues.ResultsThe survey was completed by 77 physicians (45%). Roughly half of those surveyed (49%) reported no knowledge of the breast density notification legislation. Only 32% of respondents noted an increase in patient levels of concern about breast density compared to prior years. The majority were only “somewhat comfortable” (55%) or “not comfortable” (12%) with breast density questions, and almost one-third (32%) had referred patients to a breast health clinic for these discussions. A total of 75% of those surveyed would be interested in more specific education on the subject.ConclusionsAwareness among primary care clinicians of the California Breast Density Notification Law is low, and many do not feel comfortable answering breast density-related patient questions. Breast imagers and institutions may need to devote additional time and resources to primary physician education in order for density notification laws to have significant impact on patient care.     

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.     

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.     

数字乳腺摄影的计算机辅助诊断在乳腺癌筛查中的应用

目的:探讨数字钼靶乳腺摄影及计算机辅助诊断(CAD)在乳腺癌筛查诊断中的价值。方法:2010年1月至2011年1月我院数字乳腺钼靶摄片并经手术证实的40例纳入研究,包括乳腺癌35例(其中原位癌6例)和乳腺腺体增生5例。术前分别在普通显示器上读片诊断和工作站上使用CAD软件读片诊断,然后比较分析。结果:使用普通医用显示器的乳腺癌诊断的敏感性为71.4%,准确性75%;使用CAD分析的乳腺癌诊断的敏感性为88.6%,准确性90%。应用CAD对微钙化检出的敏感性明显高于普通医用显示器(P=0.032)。结论:数字乳腺摄影结合CAD有助于乳腺癌筛查诊断。     

乳腺内微钙化X线征象再认识

目的探讨微钙化对乳腺癌诊断的价值。方法收集钼靶X线片表现有微钙化的乳腺病变共120例,均经病理证实,其中乳腺癌97例(浸润性导管癌71例,浸润性小叶癌23例,黏液癌2例,髓样癌1例)及良性病变23例(乳腺增生13例,慢性炎症4例,脂肪坏死3例,增生伴脂肪坏死3例),所有病例均行钼靶X线摄影,并对照分析其钼靶X线表现。结果(1)120例乳腺病变微钙化按密度分为高、中、低3类,分别占37.50%(45/120)、28.33%(34/120)和34.16%(41/120),其中高密度钙化多见于良性病变,占82.00%(19/23),中、低密度微钙化恶性多见,占73.19%(71/97)。(2)恶性微钙化直径多<0.5mm,表现为泥沙样、沙砾状68例,粗大钙化18例,“Y”、“V”、“树枝”形或粗棒铸型钙化8例,蠕虫样钙化3例。良性微钙化的直径一般>0.5mm,形态规则,边缘清楚。(3)大片密集或成簇的微钙化恶性多见,占84.53%(82/97),散在稀疏或粗大微钙化良性多见,占69.56%(16/23)。结论微钙化在乳腺癌诊断中,特别是早期癌诊断中具有重要价值,应重视与良性微钙化的鉴别诊断。     

Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Complements Two-Dimensional Synthetic Mammography for Secondary Examination of Breast Cancer

Objective:To compare the performance of two-dimensional synthetic mammography (SM) combined with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) (SM/DBT) and full-field digital mammography (FFDM) including women with DBT (FFDM/DBT) undergoing secondary examination for breast cancer.Material and Methods:Out of 186 breasts, including 52 with breast cancers; FFDM/DBT and SM/DBT findings were interpreted by four expert clinicians. Radiation doses of FFDM, SM/DBT, and FFDM/DBT were determined. Inter-rater reliabilities were analyzed between readers and between FFDM/DBT and SM/DBT by Cohen’s Kappa coefficients. Diagnostic accuracy was compared between SM/DBT and FFDM/DBT by Fisher’s exact tests. Two representative cancer cases were examined for differences in the interpretation between FFDM and SM.Results:A higher radiation dose was required in FFDM/DBT than in SM/DBT (median: 1.50 mGy vs. 2.95 mGy). Inter-rater reliabilities were similar between both readers and modalities. Both sensitivity and specificity were equivalent in FFDM/DBT and SM/DBT (p = 0.874–1.00). Compared with FFDM, SM did not clearly show abnormalities with subtle margins in the two representative cancer cases.Conclusion:SM/DBT had a similar performance to FFDM/DBT in detecting breast abnormalities but requires less radiation. DBT complements SM to improve accuracy to a level equivalent to that of FFDM. Taken together, SM/DBT may be a good substitute for FFDM/DBT for the secondary examination of breast cancer.     

放大摄影在乳腺疾病诊断中的价值

目的 :评价放大摄影在乳腺良、恶性病变中的诊断价值。材料和方法 :对 115例临床扪及结节或肿块患者 ,行常规摄影和加摄局部放大摄影 ,于术后分别与病理对照 ,研究两种摄影方法对病灶的边界、形态、钙化等显示情况及诊断正确率。结果 :显示肿块边界 ,放大组 3 3 .9% ,常规组 14 .8% ;肿块边缘毛刺显示率 ,放大组 2 4.3 % ,常规组 13 .0 % ;对良性病变的诊断正确率 ,放大组 94.6% ,常规组 60 .8% ;对恶性病变诊断正确率 ,放大组 87.8% ,常规组 63 .4%。结论 :放大摄影可以明显提高乳腺疾病检出率和诊断正确性。