Live Mammographic Screening Interpretation Versus Offline Same-Day Screening Interpretation at a Tertiary Cancer Center

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to compare screening mammography performance metrics for immediate (live) interpretation versus offline interpretation at a cancer center.MethodsAn institutional review board–approved, retrospective comparison of screening mammography metrics at a cancer center for January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2019 (live period), and September 1, 2020, to March 31, 2022 (offline period), was performed. Before July 2020, screening examinations were interpreted while patients waited (live period), and diagnostic workup was performed concurrently. After the coronavirus disease 2019 shutdown from March to mid-June 2020, offline same-day interpretation was instituted. Patients with abnormal screening results returned for separate diagnostic evaluation. Screening metrics of positive predictive value 1 (PPV1), cancer detection rate (CDR), and abnormal interpretation rate (AIR) were compared for 17 radiologists who interpreted during both periods. Statistical significance was assessed using χ² analysis.ResultsIn the live period, there were 7,105 screenings, 635 recalls, and 51 screen-detected cancers. In the offline period, there were 7,512 screenings, 586 recalls, and 47 screen-detected cancers. Comparison of live screening metrics versus offline metrics produced the following results: AIR, 8.9% (635 of 7,105) versus 7.8% (586 of 7,512) (P = .01); PPV1, 8.0% (51 of 635) versus 8.0% (47 of 586); and CDR, 7.2/1,000 versus 6.3/1,000 (P = .50). When grouped by >10% AIR or <10% AIR for the live period, the >10% AIR group showed a significant decrease in AIR for offline interpretation (from 12.7% to 9.7%, P < .001), whereas the <10% AIR group showed no significant change (from 7.4% to 6.7%, P = .17).ConclusionsConversion to offline screening interpretation from immediate interpretation at a cancer center was associated with lower AIR and similar CDR and PPV1. This effect was seen largely in radiologists with AIR > 10% in the live setting.     

Impact of the New Jersey Breast Density Law on Imaging and Intervention Volumes and Breast Cancer Diagnosis

PurposeIncreased breast density is acknowledged as an independent risk factor for breast cancer and may obscure malignancy on mammography. Approximately half of all mammograms depict dense breasts. Legislation related to mandatory breast density notification was first enacted in Connecticut in 2009. On May 1, 2014, New Jersey joined other states with similar legislation. The New Jersey breast density law (NJBDL) mandates that mammography reports acknowledge the relevance and masking effect of mammographic breast density. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of the NJBDL at one of the state’s largest ACR-accredited breast centers.MethodsA retrospective chart review was performed to determine changes in imaging and intervention utilization and modality of cancer diagnosis after enactment of the legislation. Data for the present study were extracted from a review of all patients with core biopsy–proven malignancy at a large outpatient breast center between November 1, 2012, and October 31, 2015. Data were divided into the 18-month period before the implementation of the NJBDL (November 1, 2012 to April 30, 2014) and the 18-month period after passage of the law (May 1, 2014 to October 31, 2015).ResultsScreening ultrasound increased significantly after the implementation of the NJBDL, by 651% (1,530 vs 11,486). MRI utilization increased by 59.3% (2,595 vs 4,134). A total of 1,213 cancers were included in the final analysis, 592 in the first time period and 621 after law implementation. Breast cancer was most commonly detected on screening mammography, followed by diagnostic mammography with ultrasound for palpable concern, in both time periods. Of the 621 cancers analyzed, 26.1% (n = 162) were found in patients 50 years of age or younger. Results demonstrated that with respect to how malignancies were detected, age and average mammographic density were both statistically significant (P = .002).ConclusionsThe NJBDL succeeded in publicizing the masking effect of dense breasts. The number of supplemental screening ultrasound and MRI examinations increased after the implementation of this legislation. An efficacy analysis affirmed the high sensitivity of screening MRI compared with other modalities. The use of MRI increased core biopsy efficiency and reduced the number of biopsies needed per cancer diagnosed.     

Impact of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic on Imaging Case Volumes

ObjectiveThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had significant economic impact on radiology with markedly decreased imaging case volumes. The purpose of this study was to quantify the imaging volumes during the COVID-19 pandemic across patient service locations and imaging modality types.MethodsImaging case volumes in a large health care system were retrospectively studied, analyzing weekly imaging volumes by patient service locations (emergency department, inpatient, outpatient) and modality types (x-ray, mammography, CT, MRI, ultrasound, interventional radiology, nuclear medicine) in years 2020 and 2019. The data set was split to compare pre-COVID-19 (weeks 1-9) and post-COVID-19 (weeks 10-16) periods. Independent-samples t tests compared the mean weekly volumes in 2020 and 2019.ResultsTotal imaging volume in 2020 (weeks 1-16) declined by 12.29% (from 522,645 to 458,438) compared with 2019. Post-COVID-19 (weeks 10-16) revealed a greater decrease (28.10%) in imaging volumes across all patient service locations (range 13.60%-56.59%) and modality types (range 14.22%-58.42%). Total mean weekly volume in 2020 post-COVID-19 (24,383 [95% confidence interval 19,478-29,288]) was statistically reduced (P = .003) compared with 33,913 [95% confidence interval 33,429-34,396] in 2019 across all patient service locations and modality types. The greatest decline in 2020 was seen at week 16 specifically for outpatient imaging (88%) affecting all modality types: mammography (94%), nuclear medicine (85%), MRI (74%), ultrasound (64%), interventional (56%), CT (46%), and x-ray (22%).DiscussionBecause the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic remains uncertain, these results may assist in guiding short- and long-term practice decisions based on the magnitude of imaging volume decline across different patient service locations and specific imaging modality types.     

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

ObjectiveTo evaluate a tomosynthesis screening mammography automated outcomes feedback application’s adoption and impact on performance.MethodsThis prospective intervention study evaluated a feedback application that provided mammographers subsequent imaging and pathology results for patients that radiologists had personally recalled from screening. Deployed to 13 academic and 5 private practice attending radiologists, adoption was studied from March 29, 2018, to March 20, 2019. Radiologists indicated if reviewed feedback would influence future clinical decisions. For a subset of eight academic radiologists consistently interpreting screening mammograms during the study, performance metrics were compared pre-intervention (January 1, 2016, to September 30, 2017) and post-intervention (October 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018). Abnormal interpretation rate, positive predictive value of biopsies performed, sensitivity, specificity, and cancer detection rate were compared using Pearson’s χ² test. Logistic regression models were fit, adjusting for age, race, breast density, prior comparison, breast cancer history, and radiologist.ResultsThe 18 radiologists reviewed 68.5% (1,398 of 2,042) of available feedback cases and indicated that 17.4% of cases (243 of 1,398) could influence future decisions. For the eight academic radiologist subset, after multivariable adjustment with comparison to pre-intervention, average abnormal interpretation rate decreased (from 7.5% to 6.7%, adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.86, P < .01), positive predictive value of biopsies performed increased (from 40.6% to 51.3%, aOR 1.48, P = .011), and specificity increased (from 93.0% to 93.9%, aOR 1.17, P < .01) post-intervention. There was no difference in cancer detection rate per 1,000 examinations (from 5.8 to 6.1, aOR 1.01, P = .91) or sensitivity (from 81.2% to 78.7%, aOR 0.84, P = .47).ConclusionsRadiologists used a screening mammography automated outcomes feedback application. Its use decreased false-positive examinations, without evidence of reduced cancer detection.     

钼靶X线引导下定位FNAC或CNB及其对乳腺微小病变的诊断价值

目的探讨钼靶X线引导下定位细针穿刺抽吸细胞学检查(fineneedleaspirationcytology,FNAC)或针芯组织学活检术(coreneedlebiopsy,CNB)及其对乳腺微小病变的诊断价值。方法经病理证实的34例35个乳腺微小病变均先行常规钼靶X线摄片,再在钼靶X线引导下定位FNAC或CNB。以手术病理为金标准回顾性分析35个乳腺微小病变的初期钼靶X线诊断率和中期钼靶X线诊断率。随机抽取经手术病理证实的30例30个未行钼靶X线引导下定位FNAC或CNB的乳腺微小病变作为对照。结果钼靶X线引导下35个病变FNAC或CNB均定位成功。2组初步钼靶X线的正确诊断率分别为60%和53.3%(P>0.5),无明显差异。研究组中期钼靶X线的正确诊断率与对照组初步钼靶X线的正确诊断率分别为82.9%和53.3%(P<0.05),有明显差异。结论钼靶X线引导下定位FNAC或CNB操作过程简便、经济、安全,定位准确率高。中期钼靶X线正确诊断率明显提高。     

Performance parameters for screening and diagnostic mammography: specialist and general radiologists

PURPOSE: To evaluate performance parameters for radiologists in a practice of breast imaging specialists and general diagnostic radiologists who interpret a large series of consecutive screening and diagnostic mammographic studies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data (ie, patient age; family history of breast cancer; availability of previous mammograms for comparison; and abnormal interpretation, cancer detection, and stage 0-I cancer detection rates) were derived from review of mammographic studies obtained from January 1997 through August 2001. The breast imaging specialists have substantially more initial training in mammography and at least six times more continuing education in mammography, and they interpret 10 times more mammographic studies per year than the general radiologists. Differences between specialist and general radiologist performances at both screening and diagnostic examinations were assessed for significance by using Student t and chi(2) tests. RESULTS: The study involved 47,798 screening and 13,286 diagnostic mammographic examinations. Abnormal interpretation rates for screening mammography (ie, recall rate) were 4.9% for specialists and 7.1% for generalists (P <.001); and for diagnostic mammography (ie, recommended biopsy rate), 15.8% and 9.9%, respectively (P <.001). Cancer detection rates at screening mammography were 6.0 cancer cases per 1,000 examinations for specialists and 3.4 per 1,000 for generalists (P =.007); and at diagnostic mammography, 59.0 per 1,000 and 36.6 per 1,000, respectively (P <.001). Stage 0-I cancer detection rates at screening mammography were 5.3 cancer cases per 1,000 examinations for specialists and 3.0 per 1,000 for generalists (P =.012); and at diagnostic mammography, 43.9 per 1,000 and 27.0 per 1,000, respectively (P <.001). CONCLUSION: Specialist radiologists detect more cancers and more early-stage cancers, recommend more biopsies, and have lower recall rates than general radiologists.     

Characteristics of COVID-19 Community Practice Declines in Noninvasive Diagnostic Imaging Professional Work

PurposeThe operational and financial impact of the widespread coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) curtailment of imaging services on radiology practices is unknown. We aimed to characterize recent COVID-19-related community practice noninvasive diagnostic imaging professional work declines.MethodsUsing imaging metadata from nine community radiology practices across the United States between January 2019 and May 2020, we mapped work relative value unit (wRVU)-weighted stand-alone noninvasive diagnostic imaging service codes to both modality and body region. Weekly 2020 versus 2019 wRVU changes were analyzed by modality, body region, and site of service. Practice share χ² testing was performed.ResultsAggregate weekly wRVUs ranged from a high of 120,450 (February 2020) to a low of 55,188 (April 2020). During that −52% wRVU nadir, outpatient declines were greatest (−66%). All practices followed similar aggregate trends in the distribution of wRVUs between each 2020 versus 2019 week (P = .96-.98). As a percentage of total all-practice wRVUs, declines in CT (20,046 of 63,992; 31%) and radiography and fluoroscopy (19,196; 30%) were greatest. By body region, declines in abdomen and pelvis (16,203; 25%) and breast (12,032; 19%) imaging were greatest. Mammography (−17%) and abdominal and pelvic CT (−14%) accounted for the largest shares of total all-practice wRVU reductions. Across modality-region groups, declines were far greatest for mammography (−92%).ConclusionsSubstantial COVID-19-related diagnostic imaging work declines were similar across community practices and disproportionately impacted mammography. Decline patterns could facilitate pandemic second wave planning. Overall implications for practice workflows, practice finances, patient access, and payment policy are manifold.     

Outcomes of screening mammography in women less than 40 prior to fertility treatment: a retrospective pilot study

ObjectiveThere are currently no evidence-based guidelines regarding breast cancer screening in women under 40 prior to initiating assisted reproductive technology (ART). The prevalence of abnormal findings on screening mammography in this population is unknown. The purpose of this study was to describe screening mammography outcomes in women less than 40 years old, referred for the indication of pre-ART.Materials, methods, proceduresThis is a retrospective review of women less than 40 years old presenting for screening mammography prior to ART between January 2010 and March 2017. Clinical history, breast cancer risk factors, imaging and pathology results were gathered from the electronic medical record.ResultsThe study included 80 women. Mean patient age was 37 years (range 34–39 years). Sixty-seven (84%) had negative or benign screening (BI-RADS 1 or 2) and 13 (16%) were recalled for diagnostic imaging (BI-RADS 0). Four of 13 (31%) recalled women were given BI-RADS 1 or 2 at diagnostic work-up, 4 (31%) were given a BI-RADS 3, and 5 (38%) were recommended for biopsy (BI-RADS 4). At patient request, 2 of 4 (50%) BI-RADS 3 cases underwent biopsy, for 7 total biopsies. Six (86%) biopsies yielded benign results and 1 (14%) yielded DCIS. Overall cancer yield was 1.3%.ConclusionIn women under 40 who plan to undergo ART, screening mammography may identify breast malignancies. This may be of particular importance given many breast cancers are hormone sensitive, and thus fertility treatments may affect tumor growth. Future, larger studies are needed.     

Utilization and Cancer Yield of Probably Benign Assessment Category in the National Mammography Database: 2009 to 2018

PurposeData on utilization rate and cancer yield of BI-RADS® category 3 in routine clinical practice in diagnostic mammography are sparse. The aim of this study was to determine utilization rate and cancer yield of BI-RADS 3 in diagnostic mammography in the ACR National Mammography Database (NMD).MethodsRetrospective analysis of NMD mammograms from January 1, 2009, to June 30, 2018, was performed. BI-RADS 3 utilization rate in diagnostic setting was calculated and stratified by patient, facility, and examination-level variables. Patient-level cancer yield was calculated among women with BI-RADS 3 assessment and adequate follow-up (imaging follow-up ≥24 months or biopsy). Logistic regression was performed to assess the odds of utilization of BI-RADS 3, with respect to facility, examination, and patient variables, and the odds of malignancy among patients with probably benign findings. Chi-square and t tests were used to determine significance (P < .05).ResultsData from 19,443,866 mammograms from 500 NMD facilities across 31 states were analyzed, of which 3,039,952 were diagnostic mammograms. Utilization rate of BI-RADS 3 was 15.5% (470,155 of 3,039,952) in the diagnostic setting. There was a statistically significant difference in BI-RADS 3 utilization rate across all collected variables (P < .001). Patient-level cancer yield at 2-year follow-up was 0.91% (2,009 of 220,672; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87%-0.95%) in the diagnostic setting. Patient and examination variables associated with significantly higher likelihood of malignancy included calcifications (odds ratio, 4.27; 95% CI, 2.43-7.51), patient age > 70 years (odds ratio, 3.77; 95% CI, 2.49-5.7), and presence of prior comparisons (odds ratio, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.07-1.42).ConclusionsIn the NMD, BI-RADS 3 assessment was common in diagnostic mammography (15.5%), with an overall cancer yield of 0.91%, less than the benchmark of 2%. Utilization trends in diagnostic mammography warrant further research for optimization of use.     

Imaging Utilization During the COVID-19 Pandemic Highlights Socioeconomic Health Disparities

ObjectiveThe devastating impact from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic highlights long-standing socioeconomic health disparities in the United States. The purpose of this study was to evaluate socioeconomic factors related to imaging utilization during the pandemic.MethodsRetrospective review of consecutive imaging examinations was performed from January 1, 2019, to May 31, 2020, across all service locations (inpatient, emergency, outpatient). Patient level data were provided for socioeconomic factors (age, sex, race, insurance status, residential zip code). Residential zip code was used to assign median income level. The weekly total imaging volumes in 2020 and 2019 were plotted from January 1 to May 31 stratified by socioeconomic factors to demonstrate the trends during the pre-COVID-19 (January 1 to February 28) and post-COVID-19 (March 1 to May 31) periods. Independent-samples t tests were used to statistically compare the 2020 and 2019 socioeconomic groups.ResultsCompared with 2019, the 2020 total imaging volume in the post-COVID-19 period revealed statistically significant increased imaging utilization in patients who are aged 60 to 79 years (P = .0025), are male (P < .0001), are non-White (Black, Asian, other, unknown; P < .05), are covered by Medicaid or uninsured (P < .05), and have income below $80,000 (P < .05). However, there was a significant decrease in imaging utilization among patients who are younger (<18 years old; P < .0001), are female (P < .0001), are White (P = .0003), are commercially insured (P < .0001), and have income ≥$80,000 (P < .05).DiscussionDuring the pandemic, there was a significant change in imaging utilization varying by socioeconomic factors, consistent with the known health disparities observed in the prevalence of COVID-19. These findings could have significant implications in directing utilization of resources during the pandemic and subsequent recovery.     

Comparing Diagnostic Performance of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Full-Field Digital Mammography

ObjectiveCompare diagnostic performance of screening full-field digital mammography (FFDM), a hybrid FFDM and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) environment, and DBT only.Materials and MethodsThis institutional review board–approved, retrospective study consisted of all patients undergoing screening mammography at an urban academic medical center and outpatient imaging facility between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2017. We used the electronic health record data warehouse to extract report data and patient demographics. A validated natural language processing algorithm extracted BI-RADS score from each report. An institutional cancer registry identified cancer diagnoses. Primary outcomes of recall rate, cancer detection rate (CDR), and positive predictive value 1 (PPV1) were calculated for three periods: FFDM-only environment, hybrid environment, and DBT-only environment. A χ² test was used to compare recall rate, CDR, and PPV1.ResultsA total of 179,028 screening mammograms comprised the study cohort: 41,818 (23.3%) during the FFDM-only period, 83,125 (46.4%) during the hybrid period, and 54,084 (30.2%) during the DBT-only period. Recall rates were 10.4% (4,279 of 41,280) for the FFDM-only period, 10.6% (8,761 of 82,917) for the hybrid period, and 10.8% (5,850 of 54,020) for the DBT-only period (P = .96). CDR (cancers per 1,000 examinations) was 2.6 per 1,000, 4.9 per 1,000, and 6.0 per 1,000 for FFDM only, hybrid, and DBT only, respectively (P < .01). PPV1s (number of cancers per number of recalls) were 2.5% for the FFDM-only period, 4.6% for the hybrid period, and 5.6% for the DBT-only period (P < .01).ConclusionRecall rates were not significantly different within the three periods in the breast imaging practice. However, PPV1 and CDR were significantly higher with DBT only.     

Batch Reading and Interrupted Interpretation of Digital Screening Mammograms Without and With Tomosynthesis

ObjectiveTo compare batch reading and interrupted interpretation for modern screening mammography.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed digital mammograms without and with tomosynthesis that were originally interpreted with batch reading or interrupted interpretation between January 2015 and June 2017. The following performance metrics were compared: recall rate (per 100 examinations), cancer detection rate (per 1,000 examinations), and positive predictive values for recall and biopsy.ResultsIn all, 9,832 digital mammograms were batch read, yielding a recall rate of 9.98%, cancer detection rate of 4.27, and positive predictive values for recall and biopsy of 4.40% and 35.5%, respectively. There were 49,496 digital mammograms that were read with interrupted interpretation, yielding a recall rate of 11.3%, cancer detection rate of 4.44, and positive predictive values for recall and biopsy of 3.92% and 30.1%, respectively. Of the digital mammograms with tomosynthesis, 7,075 were batch read, yielding a recall rate of 6.98%, cancer detection rate of 5.37, and positive predictive values for recall and biopsy of 7.69% and 38.0%, respectively. Of the digital mammograms with tomosynthesis, 24,380 were read with interrupted interpretation, yielding a recall rate of 8.30%, cancer detection rate of 5.41, and positive predictive values for recall and biopsy of 6.52% and 33.3%, respectively. For both digital mammograms without and with tomosynthesis, recall rates improved with batch reading compared with interrupted interpretation (P < .001), but no significant differences were seen for other metrics.DiscussionBatch reading digital mammograms without and with tomosynthesis improves recall rates while maintaining cancer detection rates and positive predictive values compared with interrupted interpretation.     

Effect of adding screening ultrasonography to screening mammography on patient recall and cancer detection rates: A retrospective study in Japan

Purpose

To determine whether adding screening ultrasonography to screening mammography can reduce patient recall rates and increase cancer detection rates.

Materials and methods

We analyzed the results of mammography and ultrasonography breast screenings performed at the Total Health Evaluation Center Tsukuba, Japan, between April 2011 and March 2012. We also reviewed the modalities and results of diagnostic examinations from women with mammographic abnormalities who visited the Tsukuba Medical Center Hospital for further testing.

Results

Of 11,753 women screened, cancer was diagnosed in 10 (0.22%) of the 4529 participants who underwent mammography alone, 23 (0.37%) of the 6250 participants who underwent ultrasonography alone, and 5 (0.51%) of the 974 participants who underwent mammography and ultrasonography. The recall rate due to mammographic abnormalities was 4.9% for women screened only with mammography and 2.6% for those screened with both modalities. The cancer detection rate was 0.22% for women screened only with mammography (positive predictive value, 4.5%) and 0.31% for those screened with both modalities (positive predictive value, 12.0%).Of the 211 lesions presenting as mammographic abnormalities investigated further, diagnostic ultrasonography found no abnormalities in 63 (29.9%) and benign findings in 69 (33.7%). The rest 36.4% needed mammography, cytological or histological examinations or follow-up in addition to diagnostic ultrasonography.

Conclusions

It is possible to reduce the recall rate in screening mammography by combining mammography and ultrasonography for breast screening.     

Clinical breast examination in a comprehensive breast cancer screening program: contribution and cost

PURPOSE: To retrospectively evaluate the cost of clinical breast examination (CBE) and its contribution to screening mammography in the detection of breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study received a waiver of authorization from the institutional review board, informed patient consent was not required, and the study was compliant with HIPAA regulations. The records of 60 027 consecutive asymptomatic patients who underwent screening mammography were retrospectively reviewed. CBE was performed on all patients by a nurse practitioner. Patients with positive CBE findings were required to convert from screening to diagnostic evaluation; the number of cancer diagnoses that resulted was determined. The reports, four-view mammograms, or both of patients requiring conversion to diagnostic evaluation were reviewed to determine those patients likely to undergo diagnostic imaging on the basis of screening mammographic findings alone. The cost of CBE was calculated and divided by the number of cancers detected solely with CBE to determine the cost of CBE per additional cancer detected. RESULTS: Four hundred seventy-four (age range, 32-95) of 60 027 asymptomatic patients had positive CBE findings which required conversion to diagnostic evaluation. Forty-six cancers in 44 patients were subsequently diagnosed; 32 would have been detected with mammography alone, whereas 14 were imperceptible at screening mammography. The cost of CBE was $122 598 per cancer detected solely with positive CBE findings. CONCLUSION: CBE performed by nurse practitioners led to the diagnosis of 14 cancers in 13 patients with mammographically occult tumors (0.02% of the screening population and approximately 3% of all cancers diagnosed at the facility during this study). The cost of detecting these additional cancers is estimated to be $122 598 per cancer.     

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.     

Facility Variability in Examination Indication Among Women With Prior Breast Cancer: Implications and the Need for Standardization

ObjectiveWe sought to identify and characterize examinations in women with a personal history of breast cancer likely performed for asymptomatic surveillance.MethodsWe included surveillance mammograms (1997-2017) in asymptomatic women with a personal history of breast cancer diagnosed at age ≥18 years (1996-2016) from 103 Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium facilities. We examined facility-level variability in examination indication. We modeled the relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) at the examination level of a (1) nonscreening indication and (2) surveillance interval ≤9 months using Poisson regression with fixed effects for facility, stage, diagnosis age, surgery, examination year, and time since diagnosis.ResultsAmong 244,855 surveillance mammograms, 69.5% were coded with a screening indication, 12.7% short-interval follow-up, and 15.3% as evaluation of a breast problem. Within a facility, the proportion of examinations with a screening indication ranged from 6% to 100% (median 86%, interquartile range 79%-92%). Facilities varied the most for examinations in the first 5 years after diagnosis, with 39.4% of surveillance mammograms having a nonscreening indication. Within a facility, breast conserving surgery compared with mastectomy (RR = 1.64; 95% CI = 1.60-1.68) and less time since diagnosis (1 year versus 5 years; RR = 1.69; 95% CI = 1.66-1.72; 3 years versus 5 years = 1.20; 95% CI = 1.18-1.23) were strongly associated with a nonscreening indication with similar results for ≤9-month surveillance interval. Screening indication and >9-month surveillance intervals were more common in more recent years.ConclusionVariability in surveillance indications across facilities in the United States supports including indications beyond screening in studies evaluating surveillance mammography effectiveness and demonstrates the need for standardization.     

数字乳腺断层摄影及其合成二维影像技术在乳腺癌筛查中的研究进展

目前乳腺X线检查仍是乳腺癌早期诊断的有效检查方法之一,主要包括全视野数字化乳腺摄影（FFDM）、数字乳腺断层摄影（DBT）、合成乳腺X线摄影（SM）以及3种技术的联合应用（FFDM联合DBT、SM联合DBT）。对DBT、SM和SM联合DBT在乳腺筛查中诊断效能、影像质量及辐射剂量等进行比较。SM联合DBT可有效平衡辐射剂量和诊断效能,但仍然在判读时间、信息的存储与传输和检查成本方面存在局限性。就以上3种检查技术在乳腺癌筛查中的研究进展予以综述。