A Prospective Assessment of Racial/Ethnic Differences in Future Mammography Behavior among Women Who had Early Mammography

29% of women aged 30-39 report having had a mammogram though sensitivity and specificity are low. We investigate racial/ethnic differences in future mammography behavior among women who had a baseline screening mammogram prior to age 40

Positive Predictive Value of Mammography: Comparison of Interpretations of Screening and Diagnostic Images by the Same Radiologist and by Different Radiologists

The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether the positive predictive value (PPV) after a recommendation for biopsy differs when one as opposed to more than one radiologist performs the workup after abnormal findings are discovered at screening mammography

Are there racial/ethnic disparities among women younger than 40 undergoing mammography?

While the probability of a woman developing invasive breast cancer at age <40 is low (<1%), mammography use reported among younger women (age <40) is substantial, and varies by race/ethnicity. Little detail is known about mammography use among women aged <40, particularly by race/ethnicity. We describe racial/ethnic differences in: (1) mammography indication after considering underlying risk factors (breast symptoms and family history); (2) follow-up recommendations, and (3) mammography outcomes for first mammograms in women aged <40. These 1996–2005 Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium data are prospectively pooled from seven U.S. mammography registries. Our community-based sample included 99,615 women aged 18–39 who self-reported race/ethnicity and presented for a first mammogram (screening or diagnostic) with no history of breast cancer. Multivariable analyses controlled for registry site, age, family history of breast cancer, symptoms, and exam year. Overall, 73.6% of the women in our sample were seen for a screening mammogram. Following screening mammography, African American (AA) women were more likely than white women to be recommended for additional workup [relative risk (RR): 1.15 (95% CI: 1.07–1.23)]. Following diagnostic mammography, AA [RR: 1.30 (95% CI: 1.17–1.44)] and Asian [RR: 1.44 (95% CI: 1.26–1.64)] women were more likely to be recommended for biopsy, fine-needle aspiration, or surgical consultation. Depending on race/ethnicity, and considering the rate of true positive to total first screening mammograms of younger women, a women has a likelihood of a true positive of 1 in 363–1,122; she has a likelihood of a false positive of 1 in 7–10. This study of community-based practice found racial/ethnic variability in mammography indication, recommendations, and outcomes among women undergoing first mammography before 40. These findings highlight important areas for future research to understand the motivating factors for these practice patterns and the implications of early mammography use

Factors Facilitating Acceptable Mammography Services for Women with Disabilities

Prior research has described general barriers to breast cancer screening for women with disabilities (WWD). We explored specific accommodations described as necessary by WWD who have accessed screening services, and the presence of such accommodations in community based screening programs

Association between mammographic density and basal-like and luminal A breast cancer subtypes

Abstract: Introduction: Mammographic density is a strong risk factor for breast cancer overall, but few studies have examined the association between mammographic density and specific subtypes of breast cancer, especially aggressive basal-like breast cancers. Because basal-like breast cancers are less frequently screen-detected, it is important to understand how mammographic density relates to risk of basal-like breast cancer. Methods: We estimated associations between mammographic density and breast cancer risk according to breast cancer subtype. Cases and controls were participants in the Carolina Breast Cancer Study (CBCS) who also had mammograms recorded in the Carolina Mammography Registry (CMR). A total of 491 cases had mammograms within five years prior to and one year after diagnosis and 528 controls had screening or diagnostic mammograms close to the dates of selection into CBCS. Mammographic density was reported to the CMR using Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System categories. The expression of estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), human epidermal growth factor receptor 1 and 2 (HER1 and HER2), and cytokeratin 5/6 (CK5/6) were assessed by immunohistochemistry and dichotomized as positive or negative, with ER+ and/or PR+, and HER2- tumors classified as luminal A and ER-, PR-, HER2-, HER1+ and/or CK5/6+ tumors classified as basal-like breast cancer. Triple negative tumors were defined as negative for ER, PR and HER2. Of the 491 cases 175 were missing information on subtypes; the remaining cases included 181 luminal A, 17 luminal B, 48 basal-like, 29 ER-/PR-/HER2+, and 41 unclassified subtypes. Odds ratios comparing each subtype to all controls and case-case odds ratios comparing mammographic density distributions in basal-like to luminal A breast cancers were estimated using logistic regression. Results: Mammographic density was associated with increased risk of both luminal A and basal-like breast cancers, although estimates were imprecise. The magnitude of the odds ratio associated with mammographic density was not substantially different between basal-like and luminal A cancers in case–control analyses and case-case analyses (case-case OR = 1.08 (95% confidence interval: 0.30, 3.84)). Conclusions: These results suggest that risk estimates associated with mammographic density are not distinct for separate breast cancer subtypes (basal-like/triple negative vs. luminal A breast cancers). Studies with a larger number of basal-like breast cancers are needed to confirm our findings

Effect of Observing Change from Comparison Mammograms on Performance of Screening Mammography in a Large Community-based Population

To evaluate the effect of comparison mammograms on accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV1), and cancer detection rate (CDR) of screening mammography to determine the role played by identification of change on comparison mammograms

Mammographic density and breast cancer risk in White and African American Women

Mammographic density is a strong risk factor for breast cancer, but limited data are available in African American (AA) women. We examined the association between mammographic density and breast cancer risk in AA and white women. Cases (n = 491) and controls (n = 528) were from the Carolina Breast Cancer Study (CBCS) who also had mammograms recorded in the Carolina Mammography Registry (CMR). Mammographic density was reported to CMR using Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) categories. Increasing mammographic density was associated with increased breast cancer risk among all women. After adjusting for potential confounders, a monotonically increasing risk of breast cancer was observed between the highest versus the lowest BI-RADS density categories [OR = 2.45, (95 % confidence interval: 0.99, 6.09)]. The association was stronger in whites, with ~40 % higher risk among those with extremely dense breasts compared to those with scattered fibroglandular densities [1.39, (0.75, 2.55)]. In AA women, the same comparison suggested lower risk [0.75, (0.30, 1.91)]. Because age, obesity, and exogenous hormones have strong associations with breast cancer risk, mammographic density, and race in the CBCS, effect measure modification by these factors was considered. Consistent with previous literature, density-associated risk was greatest among those with BMI > 30 and current hormone users (P value = 0.02 and 0.01, respectively). In the CBCS, mammographic density is associated with increased breast cancer risk, with some suggestion of effect measure modification by race, although results were not statistically significant. However, exposures such as BMI and hormone therapy may be important modifiers of this association and merit further investigation

Cumulative Probability of False-Positive Recall or Biopsy Recommendation After 10 Years of Screening Mammography: A Cohort Study

False-positive mammography results are common. Biennial screening may decrease the cumulative probability of false-positive results across many years of repeat screening but could also delay cancer diagnosis

The Influence of Mammographic Technologists on Radiologists' Ability to Interpret Screening Mammograms in Community Practice

To determine whether the mammographic technologist has an effect on the radiologists’ interpretative performance of screening mammography in community practice

Breast MRI BI-RADS Assessments and Abnormal Interpretation Rates by Clinical Indication in US Community Practices

As breast MRI use grows, benchmark performance parameters are needed for auditing and quality assurance purposes. We describe the variation in breast MRI abnormal interpretation rates (AIRs) by clinical indication among a large sample of U.S. community practices