ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Female Breast Cancer Screening: 2023 Update

Early detection of breast cancer from regular screening substantially reduces breast cancer mortality and morbidity. Multiple different imaging modalities may be used to screen for breast cancer. Screening recommendations differ based on an individual's risk of developing breast cancer. Numerous factors contribute to breast cancer risk, which is frequently divided into three major categories: average, intermediate, and high risk. For patients assigned female at birth with native breast tissue, mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis are the recommended method for breast cancer screening in all risk categories. In addition to the recommendation of mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis in high-risk patients, screening with breast MRI is recommended. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision process support the systematic analysis of the medical literature from peer reviewed journals. Established methodology principles such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE are adapted to evaluate the evidence. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User Manual provides the methodology to determine the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where peer reviewed literature is lacking or equivocal, experts may be the primary evidentiary source available to formulate a recommendation.

The Association Between Mammography Screening Frequency and Breast Cancer Treatment and Outcomes: A Retrospective Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

Guidelines for optimal frequency of screening mammography vary by professional society. Sparse evidence exists on the association between screening frequency and breast cancer treatment options. The main objective was to examine differences in cancer treatment rendered for U.S. women with different numbers of screenings prior to breast cancer diagnosis. Cancer stage at diagnosis and health care cost were assessed in secondary analyses.

METHODS

This IRB-exempt retrospective study used administrative claims data to identify women aged 44 or older with various numbers of mammographic screenings ≥11 months apart, during the four years prior to incident breast cancer diagnosis from January 2010 to December 2018. Outcomes were assessed over the six months following diagnosis. Generalized linear regression models were used to compare women with differing numbers of mammograms, adjusting for patient characteristics.

RESULTS

Claims data review identified 25 492 women who met inclusion criteria. There was a stepwise improvement in each of these screening categories such that women with four screenings, compared to women with only one screening, experienced higher rates of lumpectomy (70% vs 55%) and radiation therapy (48% vs 36%), lower rates of mastectomy (27% vs 34%) and chemotherapy (28% vs 36%), less stage 3 or 4 cancer at diagnosis (15% vs 29%), and lower health care costs within six months postdiagnosis (P < 0.001). Results were similar in a subgroup limited to women aged 44 to 49 at diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

Potential benefits of more frequent screening include less aggressive treatment and lower health care costs among women who develop breast cancer.

Team Science Principles Enhance Cancer Care Delivery Quality Improvement: Interdisciplinary Implementation of Breast Cancer Screening Shared Decision Making

PURPOSE

Implementing shared decision making (SDM), recommended in screening mammography by national guidelines for women age 40-49 years, faces challenges that innovations in quality improvement and team science (TS) are poised to address. We aimed to improve the effectiveness, patient-centeredness, and efficiency of SDM in primary care for breast cancer screening.

METHODS

Our interdisciplinary team included primary and specialty care, psychology, epidemiology, communication science, engineering, and stakeholders (patients and clinicians). Over a 6-year period, we executed two iterative cycles of plan-do-study-act (PDSA) to develop, revise, and implement a SDM tool using TS principles. Patient and physician surveys and retrospective analysis of tool performance informed our first PDSA cycle. Patient and physician surveys, toolkit use, and clinical outcomes in the second PDSA cycle supported SDM implementation. We gathered team member assessments on the importance of individual TS activities.

RESULTS

Our first PDSA cycle successfully generated a SDM tool called Breast Cancer Risk Estimator, deemed valuable by 87% of patients surveyed. Our second PDSA cycle increased Breast Cancer Risk Estimator utilization, from 2,000 sessions in 2017 to 4,097 sessions in 2019 while maintaining early-stage breast cancer diagnoses. Although TS activities such as culture, trust, and communication needed to be sustained throughout the project, shared goals, research/data infrastructure support, and leadership were more important earlier in the project and persisted in the later stages of the project.

CONCLUSION

Combining rigorous quality improvement and TS principles can support the complex, interdependent, and interdisciplinary activities necessary to improve cancer care delivery exemplified by our implementation of a breast cancer screening SDM tool.

The Landmark Series-Addressing Disparities in Breast Cancer Screening: New Recommendations for Black Women

Randomized, clinical trials have established the efficacy of screening mammography in improving survival from breast cancer for women through detection of early, asymptomatic disease. However, disparities in survival rates between black women and women from other racial and ethnic groups following breast cancer diagnosis persist. Various professional groups have different, somewhat conflicting, guidelines with regards to recommended age for commencing screening as well as recommended frequency of screening exams, but the trials upon which these recommendations are based were not specifically designed to examine benefit among black women. Furthermore, these recommendations do not appear to incorporate the unique epidemiological circumstances of breast cancer among black women, including higher rates of diagnosis before age 40 years and greater likelihood of advanced stage at diagnosis, into their formulation. In this review, we examined the epidemiologic and socioeconomic factors that are associated with breast cancer among black women and assess the implications of these factors for screening in this population. Specifically, we recommend that by no later than age 25 years, all black women should undergo baseline assessment for future risk of breast cancer utilizing a model that incorporates race (e.g., Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool [BCRAT], formerly the Gail model) and that this assessment should be conducted by a breast specialist or a healthcare provider (e.g., primary care physician or gynecologist) who is trained to assess breast cancer risk and is aware of the increased risks of early (i.e., premenopausal) and biologically aggressive (e.g., late-stage, triple-negative) breast cancer among black women.

Multiple mediation analysis of racial disparity in breast cancer survival

BACKGROUND

Racial (Black vs. White) disparities in breast cancer survival have proven difficult to mitigate. Targeted strategies aimed at the primary factors driving the disparity offer the greatest potential for success. The purpose of this study was to use multiple mediation analysis to identify the most important mediators of the racial disparity in breast cancer survival.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic White women diagnosed with invasive breast cancer in Florida between 2004 and 2015. Cox regression was used to obtain unadjusted and adjusted hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the association of race with 5- and 10-year breast cancer death. Multiple mediation analysis of tumor (advanced disease stage, tumor grade, hormone receptor status) and treatment-related factors (receipt of surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and hormone therapy) was used to determine the most important mediators of the survival disparity.

RESULTS

The study population consisted of 101,872 women of whom 87.0% (n = 88,617) were White and 13.0% were Black (n = 13,255). Black women experienced 2.3 times (HR, 2.27; 95% CI, 2.16-2.38) the rate of 5-year breast cancer death over the follow-up period, which decreased to a 38% increased rate (HR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.31-1.45) after adjustment for age and the mediators of interest. Combined, all examined mediators explained 73% of the racial disparity in 5-year breast cancer survival. The most important mediators were: (1) advanced disease stage (44.8%), (2) nonreceipt of surgery (34.2%), and (3) tumor grade (18.2%) and hormone receptor status (17.6%). Similar results were obtained for 10-year breast cancer death.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that additional efforts to increase uptake of screening mammography in hard-to-reach women, and, following diagnosis, access to and receipt of surgery may offer the greatest potential to reduce racial disparities in breast cancer survival for women in Florida.

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.

Lifting the fog of confusion about breast cancer screening guidelines: Surprise - it's about the money!

Large amounts of misinformation denigrating the benefits of breast cancer screening have been published over the past 50 years and continue to be published. Each effort to reduce breast cancer screening has been refuted, scientifically, but the efforts continue. The motivation has been unclear until the recent guidelines issued by the American Society of Breast Surgeons who support annual screening starting at the age of 40 contrasted with the American College of Physicians who advocated delaying screening until the age of 50 and then biennially. An analysis of the facts can only lead to the conclusion that delayed screening has been chosen to save money rather than lives.

Radio-guided and clip-guided preoperative localization for malignant microcalcifications offer similar performances in breast-conserving surgery

Obtaining a tailored breast resection is challenging in microcalcifications detected on screening mammography, and an accurate localization is required. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of radio-guided localization (ROLL) versus ultrasound localization of a titanium clip with collagen (TCC) in terms of clear margins, re-intervention rates, excess of resected breast tissue, and operative times in pure malignant microcalcifications detected on screening mammography. Two hundred and twenty-one consecutive patients with malignant microcalcifications detected on screening mammography from a tertiary breast unit were reviewed: 177 patients were localized by TCC and 44 patients by stereotactic ROLL. A propensity score-matched analysis was performed, followed by a logistic regression model, to avoid selection bias. Adequacy of resection was expressed as the calculated resection ratio considering lesion size. No differences were found in clear margins with ROLL versus TCC (77.3% vs 81.8%, adjusted OR 2, P = 0.27). Re-operation rates were similar, being 11.3% with ROLL and 7.4% with TCC (P = 0.627). Mean resection volume was 46.2 cm³ with ROLL versus 54.2 cm³ with TCC (P = 0.222). Adjusted mean calculated resection ratio was 1.8 with ROLL and 2.1 with TCC (P = 0.38). Surgery time was longer with TCC compared to ROLL (69.6 vs 52.7 minutes, P < 0.0001). ROLL and TCC are equally effective to excise malignant microcalcifications with clear margins, providing similar re-intervention rates and resection volumes.

Radio‐guided vs clip‐guided localization of nonpalpable mass‐like lesions of the breast from a screened population: A propensity score‐matched study

Background and Objectives

An accurate localization is mandatory to tailor breast lumpectomy in nonpalpable cancers. The aim of this study was to compare radio‐guided localization (ROLL) vs ultrasound localization of a titanium clip with collagen (TCC) in nonpalpable mass‐like breast cancers.

Methods

Two hundred seventy‐three consecutive patients were reviewed: 64 patients were localized by TCC and 209 patients by ROLL. Propensity score‐matched analysis was performed. Margin status and reintervention rates were compared. Adequacy of resection was expressed as the calculated resection ratio (CRR) considering lesion size. Loco‐regional and distant recurrence rates were assessed with ROLL vs TCC.

Results

No differences were found with ROLL vs TCC in clear margins (90.6% vs 89.1%; odds ratio, 0.74; P = 0.64) or reoperations (6.7% vs 1.6%; P = 0.529). ROLL allowed more tailored resections compared with TCC (adjusted CRR, 1.7 vs 2.7; P = 0.0008), particularly in lesions with associated extensive intraductal component (CRR, 3.0 vs 4.5; P = 0.017). Loco‐regional recurrence occurred in 1.9% of ROLL patients vs 3.2% of TCC cases (P = 0.628).

Conclusions

ROLL and TCC are equally effective to excise nonpalpable mass‐like breast cancers with clear margins, providing similar loco‐regional control. However, ROLL allows more tailored breast resections, particularly in lesions with the associated extensive intraductal component.

Calcifications at Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Imaging Features and Biopsy Techniques

Full-field digital mammography (FFDM), the standard of care for breast cancer screening, has some limitations. With the advent of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), improvements including decreased recall rates and increased cancer detection rates have been observed. The quasi-three-dimensional capability of DBT reduces breast tissue overlap, a significant limitation of FFDM. However, early studies demonstrate that a few cancers detected at FFDM may not be diagnosed at DBT-only screening, and lesions with calcifications as the dominant feature may look less suspicious at DBT or not be visible at all. These findings support the use of combined FFDM and DBT protocols to optimize screening performance. However, this combination would approximately double the patient's radiation exposure. The development of computer algorithms that generate two-dimensional synthesized mammography (SM) views from DBT has improved calcification conspicuity and sensitivity. Therefore, SM may substitute for FFDM in screening protocols, reducing radiation exposure. DBT plus SM demonstrates significantly better performance than that of FFDM alone, although there are reports of missed malignant calcifications. Thus, some centers continue to perform FFDM with DBT. Use of DBT in breast imaging has also necessitated the development of DBT-guided biopsy. DBT-guided biopsy may have a higher success rate than that of stereotactic biopsy, with a shorter procedure time. While DBT brings substantial improvements to breast cancer imaging, it is important to be aware of its strengths and limitations regarding detection of calcifications. This article reviews the imaging appearance of breast calcifications at DBT, discusses calcification biopsy techniques, and provides an overview of the current literature. Online supplemental material is available for this article. ^©RSNA, 2019 An earlier incorrect version of this article appeared online. This article was corrected on February 13, 2019.

Overview of Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis

Screening mammography saves lives. The mainstay of screening has been mammography. Multiple alternative options, however, for supplemental imaging are now available. Some are just improved anatomic delineation whereas others include physiology added to anatomy. A third group (molecular imaging) is purely physiologic. This article describes and compares the available options and for which patient populations they should be used.

Harms of Restrictive Risk-Based Mammographic Breast Cancer Screening

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to determine if restrictive risk-based mammographic screening could miss breast cancers that population-based screening could detect.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Through a retrospective search of records at a single institution, we identified 552 screen-detected breast cancers in 533 patients. All in situ and invasive breast cancers detected at screening between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2014, were included. Medical records were reviewed for history, pathology, cancer size, nodal status, breast density, and mammographic findings. Mammograms were interpreted by one of 14 breast imaging radiologists with 3-30 years of experience, all of whom were certified according to the Mammography Quality Standards Act. Patient ages ranged from 36 to 88 years (mean, 61 years). The breast cancer risks evaluated were family history of breast cancer and dense breast tissue. Positive family history was defined as a first-degree relative with breast cancer. Dense breast parenchyma was either heterogeneously or extremely dense.

RESULTS

Group 1 consisted of the 76.7% (409/533) of patients who had no personal history of breast cancer. Of these patients, 75.6% (309/409) had no family history of breast cancer, and 56% (229/409) had nondense breasts. Group 2 consisted of the 16.7% (89/533) of patients who were 40-49 years old. Of these patients, 79.8% (71/89) had no family history of breast cancer, and 30.3% (27/89) had nondense breasts. Ductal carcinoma in situ made up 34.6% (191/552) of the cancers; 65.4% (361/552) were invasive. The median size of the invasive cancers was 11 mm. Of the screen-detected breast cancers, 63.8% (352/552) were minimal cancers.

CONCLUSION

Many screen-detected breast cancers occurred in women without dense tissue or a family history of breast cancer. Exclusive use of restrictive risk-based screening could result in delayed cancer detection for many women.

Multidisciplinary Tumor Boards: An Opportunity for Radiologists to Demonstrate Value

In response to healthcare reform, a necessary evolution of radiology has shifted from generating volume to demonstrating value. Multidisciplinary tumor boards provide a critical opportunity for radiologists to demonstrate their value to their clinical colleagues, their patients, administrations, and society.

The impact of mammographic screening on the surgical management of breast cancer

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Mammographic screening has been shown to result in downward stage migration, reflected by smaller tumor sizes and less extensive nodal involvement. National guidelines restrict screening recommendations in women age 40-49. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the specific impact of mammographic screening patterns on the surgical management of breast cancer in women aged 40-49.

METHODS

The study is a population-based retrospective review of the Vermont Breast Cancer Surveillance System of women aged 40-49 with a diagnosis of breast cancer. Tumor stage and related characteristics at the time of diagnosis, as well as the type of surgical intervention performed were recorded for women presenting with screen-detected versus non-screen-detected breast cancer.

RESULTS

Screen-detected breast cancers in women aged 40-49 were associated with a greater incidence of DCIS, smaller invasive tumor size, fewer cases of positive nodes, and higher rates of breast conservation compared to non-screened women presenting with symptomatic disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Mammographic screening is associated with less aggressive surgical treatment of breast cancer including higher rates of breast conservation. The observed changes in surgical management should factor into individual decision-making regarding screening mammography. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016;113:496-500. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

The Potential Impact of Risk-Based Screening Mammography in Women 40-49 Years Old

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence of very strong family history and extremely dense tissue in women 40-49 years old with breast cancer detected on screening mammography.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All cancers detected by screening mammography at our institution between January 1997 and November 2012 in 40- to 49-year-old women were retrospectively identified. Those with a personal history of breast cancer were excluded. Family history, breast density, type of malignancy, hormone receptor status, and lymph node status were recorded.

RESULTS

One hundred thirty-six cases of breast cancer were identified on screening mammography in 40- to 49-year-old women; 50% were invasive cancers, and 50%, ductal carcinoma in situ. Very strong family history was absent in 88%, and extremely dense breast tissue was absent in 86%. Seventy-six percent of patients had neither very strong family history nor extremely dense breasts, including 79% of the cases of invasive cancers, of which 25% had axillary nodal involvement and 89% were estrogen receptor positive.

CONCLUSION

Very strong family history and extremely dense breast tissue were absent in most 40- to 49-year-old women with breast cancer detected at screening mammography. These cancers were frequently invasive (often with nodal metastases) and treatable (hormone receptor positive). Reducing the number of women to be screened in this age group by using this risk-based approach would reduce the number of screen-detected cancers by more than 75%, thereby precluding the benefit of mortality reduction. Even using a risk-based strategy with an expanded definition of high risk that included any first-degree family history, extremely dense tissue, or both, 66% of malignancies would still be missed.

Beyond the mammography debate: a moderate perspective

After some decades of contention, one can almost despair and conclude that (paraphrasing) "the mammography debate you will have with you always." Against that sentiment, in this review I argue, after reflecting on some of the major themes of this long-standing debate, that we must begin to move beyond the narrow borders of claim and counterclaim to seek consensus on what the balance of methodologically sound and critically appraised evidence demonstrates, and also to find overlooked underlying convergences; after acknowledging the reality of some residual and non-trivial harms from mammography, to promote effective strategies for harm mitigation; and to encourage deployment of new screening modalities that will render many of the issues and concerns in the debate obsolete. To these ends, I provide a sketch of what this looking forward and beyond the current debate might look like, leveraging advantages from abbreviated breast magnetic resonance imaging technologies (such as the ultrafast and twist protocols) and from digital breast tomosynthesis-also known as three-dimensional mammography. I also locate the debate within the broader context of mammography in the real world as it plays out not for the disputants, but for the stakeholders themselves: the screening-eligible patients and the physicians in the front lines who are charged with enabling both the acts of screening and the facts of screening at their maximally objective and patient-accessible levels to facilitate informed decisions.