Long-term Accuracy of Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Combining Classic Risk Factors and Breast Density

This study was supported by grant C569/A16891 from Cancer Research UK; research specialist award R50CA211115 from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) (Ms Bowles); grants HHSN261201100031C and P01CA154292 from the NCI-funded Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (Dr Buist); and contracts N01-CN-005230, N01-CN-67009, N01-PC-35142, HHSN261201000029C, and HHSN261201300012I from the Cancer Surveillance System of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, funded by the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Program of the NCI with additional support from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and the State of Washington

Recent trends in hormone therapy utilization and breast cancer incidence rates in the high incidence population of Marin County, California

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Recent declines in invasive breast cancer have been reported in the US, with many studies linking these declines to reductions in the use of combination estrogen/progestin hormone therapy (EPHT). We evaluated the changing use of postmenopausal hormone therapy, mammography screening rates, and the decline in breast cancer incidence specifically for Marin County, California, a population with historically elevated breast cancer incidence rates.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The Marin Women's Study (MWS) is a community-based, prospective cohort study launched in 2006 to monitor changes in breast cancer, breast density, and personal and biologic risk factors among women living in Marin County. The MWS enrolled 1,833 women following routine screening mammography between October 2006 and July 2007. Participants completed a self-administered questionnaire that included items regarding historical hormone therapy regimen (estrogen only, progesterone only, EPHT), age of first and last use, total years of use, and reason(s) for stopping, as well as information regarding complementary hormone use. Questionnaire items were analyzed for 1,083 non-Hispanic white participants ages 50 and over. Breast cancer incidence rates were assessed overall and by tumor histology and estrogen receptor (ER) status for the years 1990-2007 using data from the Northern California Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) cancer registry.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Prevalence of EPHT use among non-Hispanic white women ages 50 and over declined sharply from 21.2% in 1998 to 6.7% by 2006-07. Estrogen only use declined from 26.9% in 1998 to 22.4% by 2006-07. Invasive breast cancer incidence rates declined 33.4% between 2001 and 2004, with drops most pronounced for ER+ cancers. These rate reductions corresponded to declines of about 50 cases per year, consistent with population attributable fraction estimates for EPHT-related breast cancer. Self-reported screening mammography rates did not change during this period. Use of alternative or complementary agents did not differ significantly between ever and never hormone users. Of women who reported stopping EPHT in the past 5 years, 60% cited "health risks" or "news reports" as their primary reasons for quitting.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>A dramatic reduction in EPHT use was followed temporally by a significant reduction in invasive and ER+ breast cancer rates among women living in Marin County, California.</p

Impact of errors in recorded compressed breast thickness measurements on volumetric density classification using volpara v1.5.0 software

Purpose: Mammographic density has been demonstrated to predict breast cancer risk. It has been proposed that it could be used for stratifying screening pathways and recommending additional imaging. Volumetric density tools use the recorded compressed breast thickness (CBT) of the breast measured at the x-ray unit in their calculation, however the accuracy of the recorded thickness can vary. The aim of this study was to investigate whether inaccuracies in recorded CBT impact upon volumetric density classification and to examine whether the current quality control (QC) standard is sufficient for assessing mammographic density. Methods: Raw data from 52 digital screening mammograms were included in the study. For each image, the clinically recorded CBT was artificially increased and decreased to simulate measurement error. Increments of 1mm were used up to ±15% error of recorded CBT was achieved. New images were created for each 1mm step in thickness resulting in a total of 974 images which then had Volpara Density Grade (VDG) and volumetric density percentage assigned. Results: A change in VDG was recorded in 38.5% (n= 20) of mammograms when applying ±15% error to the recorded CBT and 11.5 % (n= 6) were within the QC standard prescribed error of ±5mm. Conclusion: The current QC standard of ±5mm error in recorded CBT creates the potential for error in mammographic density measurement. This may lead to inaccurate classification of mammographic density. The current QC standard for assessing mammographic density should be reconsidered

Mammographic density and risk of breast cancer by age and tumor characteristics

Introduction: Understanding whether mammographic density (MD) is associated with all breast tumor subtypes and whether the strength of association varies by age is important for utilizing MD in risk models. Methods: Data were pooled from six studies including 3414 women with breast cancer and 7199 without who underwent screening mammography. Percent MD was assessed from digitized film-screen mammograms using a computer-assisted threshold technique. We used polytomous logistic regression to calculate breast cancer odds according to tumor type, histopathological characteristics, and receptor (estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER2)) status by age (51%) versus average density (11-25%). Women ages 2.1 cm) versus small tumors and positive versus negative lymph node status (P’s < 0.01). For women ages <55 years, there was a stronger association of MD with ER-negative breast cancer than ER-positive tumors compared to women ages 55–64 and ≥65 years (Page-interaction = 0.04). MD was positively associated with both HER2-negative and HER2-positive tumors within each age group. Conclusion: MD is strongly associated with all breast cancer subtypes, but particularly tumors of large size and positive lymph nodes across all ages, and ER-negative status among women ages <55 years, suggesting high MD may play an important role in tumor aggressiveness, especially in younger women

Community Policing: Broken Windows, Community Building, and Satisfaction with the Police

The concept of community policing dominates the law enforcement profession today. One would be hard pressed to find an advertisement for a police chief’s position that does not require a thorough understanding of this method of policing. Like the Kansas City preventive patrol experiment and the Rand report on the criminal investigation process, the call for community policing has led to dramatic changes in the way that police carry out their responsibilities. In spite of its popularity, there have been a number of challenges to community policing from social scientists who are particularly concerned about the ‘broken windows’ model of policing. These challenges have not been received well by the law enforcement community, which argues that sociologists are wedded to the idea that crime is caused by the structural features of capitalist society, including economic injustice, racism, and poverty. The purpose of this article is to bridge the gap between these two positions. Yes, there is a place for community policing, and, yes, social problems do contribute to crime. The article starts by reviewing the development of community policing in the United States. An analysis of the theoretical constructs that support community policing then follows. Finally, we argue that there is sound theoretical evidence to support community policing, particularly those programmes that improve citizen satisfaction with the manner in which police carry out their responsibilities

Mammography Facility Characteristics Associated With Interpretive Accuracy of Screening Mammography

BackgroundAlthough interpretive performance varies substantially among radiologists, such variation has not been examined among mammography facilities. Understanding sources of facility variation could become a foundation for improving interpretive performance.MethodsIn this cross-sectional study conducted between 1996 and 2002, we surveyed 53 facilities to evaluate associations between facility structure, interpretive process characteristics, and interpretive performance of screening mammography (ie, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value [PPV1], and the likelihood of cancer among women who were referred for biopsy [PPV2]). Measures of interpretive performance were ascertained prospectively from mammography interpretations and cancer data collected by the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses estimated the association between facility characteristics and mammography interpretive performance or accuracy (area under the ROC curve [AUC]). All P values were two-sided.ResultsOf the 53 eligible facilities, data on 44 could be analyzed. These 44 facilities accounted for 484 463 screening mammograms performed on 237 669 women, of whom 2686 were diagnosed with breast cancer during follow-up. Among the 44 facilities, mean sensitivity was 79.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 74.3% to 84.9%), mean specificity was 90.2% (95% CI = 88.3% to 92.0%), mean PPV1 was 4.1% (95% CI = 3.5% to 4.7%), and mean PPV2 was 38.8% (95% CI = 32.6% to 45.0%). The facilities varied statistically significantly in specificity (P &lt; .001), PPV1 (P &lt; .001), and PPV2 (P = .002) but not in sensitivity (P = .99). AUC was higher among facilities that offered screening mammograms alone vs those that offered screening and diagnostic mammograms (0.943 vs 0.911, P = .006), had a breast imaging specialist interpreting mammograms vs not (0.932 vs 0.905, P = .004), did not perform double reading vs independent double reading vs consensus double reading (0.925 vs 0.915 vs 0.887, P = .034), or conducted audit reviews two or more times per year vs annually vs at an unknown frequency (0.929 vs 0.904 vs 0.900, P = .018).ConclusionMammography interpretive performance varies statistically significantly by facility

Radiographers supporting radiologists in the interpretation of screening mammography: a viable strategy to meet the shortage in the number of radiologists.

BackgroundAn alternative approach to the traditional model of radiologists interpreting screening mammography is necessary due to the shortage of radiologists to interpret screening mammograms in many countries.MethodsWe evaluated the performance of 15 Mexican radiographers, also known as radiologic technologists, in the interpretation of screening mammography after a 6 months training period in a screening setting. Fifteen radiographers received 6 months standardized training with radiologists in the interpretation of screening mammography using the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) system. A challenging test set of 110 cases developed by the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium was used to evaluate their performance. We estimated sensitivity, specificity, false positive rates, likelihood ratio of a positive test (LR+) and the area under the subject-specific Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) for diagnostic accuracy. A mathematical model simulating the consequences in costs and performance of two hypothetical scenarios compared to the status quo in which a radiologist reads all screening mammograms was also performed.ResultsRadiographer's sensitivity was comparable to the sensitivity scores achieved by U.S. radiologists who took the test but their false-positive rate was higher. Median sensitivity was 73.3 % (Interquartile range, IQR: 46.7-86.7 %) and the median false positive rate was 49.5 % (IQR: 34.7-57.9 %). The median LR+ was 1.4 (IQR: 1.3-1.7 %) and the median AUC was 0.6 (IQR: 0.6-0.7). A scenario in which a radiographer reads all mammograms first, and a radiologist reads only those that were difficult for the radiographer, was more cost-effective than a scenario in which either the radiographer or radiologist reads all mammograms.ConclusionsGiven the comparable sensitivity achieved by Mexican radiographers and U.S. radiologists on a test set, screening mammography interpretation by radiographers appears to be a possible adjunct to radiologists in countries with shortages of radiologists. Further studies are required to assess the effectiveness of different training programs in order to obtain acceptable screening accuracy, as well as the best approaches for the use of non-physician readers to interpret screening mammography