Long-term Mammography Screening Trends and Predictors of Return to Screening after the COVID-19 Pandemic: Results from a Statewide Registry.

Purpose To evaluate long-term trends in mammography screening rates and identify sociodemographic and breast cancer risk characteristics associated with return to screening after the COVID-19 pandemic. Materials and Methods In this retrospective study, statewide screening mammography data of 222 384 female individuals aged 40 years or older (mean age, 58.8 years ± 11.7 [SD]) from the Vermont Breast Cancer Surveillance System were evaluated to generate descriptive statistics and Joinpoint models to characterize screening patterns during 2000-2022. Log-binomial regression models estimated associations of sociodemographic and risk characteristics with post-COVID-19 pandemic return to screening. Results The proportion of female individuals in Vermont aged 50-74 years with a screening mammogram obtained in the previous 2 years declined from a prepandemic level of 61.3% (95% CI: 61.1%, 61.6%) in 2019 to 56.0% (95% CI: 55.7%, 56.3%) in 2021 before rebounding to 60.7% (95% CI: 60.4%, 61.0%) in 2022. Screening adherence in 2022 remained substantially lower than that observed during the 2007-2010 apex of screening adherence (66.1%-67.0%). Joinpoint models estimated an annual percent change of -1.1% (95% CI: -1.5%, -0.8%) during 2010-2022. Among the cohort of 95 644 individuals screened during January 2018-March 2020, the probability of returning to screening during 2020-2022 varied by age (eg, risk ratio [RR] = 0.94 [95% CI: 0.93, 0.95] for age 40-44 vs age 60-64 years), race and ethnicity (RR = 0.84 [95% CI: 0.78, 0.90] for Black vs White individuals), education (RR = 0.84 [95% CI: 0.81, 0.86] for less than high school degree vs college degree), and by 5-year breast cancer risk (RR = 1.06 [95% CI: 1.04, 1.08] for very high vs average risk). Conclusion Despite a rebound to near prepandemic levels, Vermont mammography screening rates have steadily declined since 2010, with certain sociodemographic groups less likely to return to screening after the pandemic. Keywords: Mammography, Breast, Health Policy and Practice, Neoplasms-Primary, Epidemiology, Screening Supplemental material is available for this article. © RSNA, 2024.

Ultrasound for the Objective Measurement of Breast Lymphedema.

OBJECTIVES: Breast lymphedema has supplanted upper extremity lymphedema as a common and debilitating sequela of breast cancer treatment, but has no objective measurement. We assessed the utility of ultrasound-measured difference in dermal thickness between affected and unaffected breasts as a measure of breast lymphedema. We associated this measure with patient characteristics, treatment parameters, and patient-reported impact on quality of life. METHODS: We enrolled 30 invasive breast carcinoma patients treated with breast-conserving surgery, sentinel lymph node biopsy, and radiotherapy, and 10 control patients evaluated for benign breast conditions without prior breast surgery or radiotherapy. Patient and treatment variables were ascertained from medical records and radiotherapy instruments. Impacts on quality of life were measured with a modified Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire. We characterized breast lymphedema by calculating the difference in ultrasound-measured dermal thickness between affected and unaffected breasts. Associations with patient characteristics, treatment, and quality of life were quantified with log-binomial regression models. RESULTS: Breast lymphedema was defined as a dermal thickness difference of >0.3 mm. Nineteen patients in the invasive group (63%) had breast lymphedema by this definition. We observed positive associations between ultrasound-defined breast lymphedema and surgical factors (size of primary tumor, number of lymph nodes removed), radiotherapy factors (breast volume irradiated, receipt of radiation boost), and patient-reported outcomes (sleep quality and overall confidence). CONCLUSIONS: Difference in dermal thickness is an easy and inexpensive measurement for quantifying breast lymphedema, and correlates with treatment parameters and patient-reported impacts on quality of life.

Gradual adoption of needle biopsy for breast lesions in a rural state.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive breast biopsy (MIBB) is the standard of care for the diagnosis of breast cancer, with consensus guidelines suggesting MIBB goals of 90% of total biopsies. In a previous study of patients in the rural state of Vermont, USA (population size of 640,000), rural breast cancer patients had open biopsies 42% of the time compared to 29% of urban breast cancer patients. The aim of this study was to assess overall population-based biopsy trends in Vermont. METHODS: The Vermont Breast Cancer Surveillance System (VBCSS) was used to identify women receiving MIBB and excisional breast biopsies in Vermont. Patient zip code at the time of initial biopsy was used to determine the patient residence rurality by rural-urban commuting area codes (RUCA 2.0™). RESULTS: There were 9122 diagnostic episodes from 1999 to 2018. MIBB was the initial biopsy method in 7524 (82.5%) cases, while surgical excision was the initial biopsy method in 1598 (17.5%) cases. A linear trend fit estimated an increase of 1.3% per year (p < 0.001, 95% CI 1.1%-1.5%) in the fraction of patients undergoing MIBB. Patients living in rural areas were less likely to receive MIBB (78.5%) than those living in urban areas (94.9%), p < 0.001. Multivariate analysis showed that urban patients and those patients in the years 2014-2018 were more likely to receive MIBB (OR 5.00, 95% CI 4.13-6.05 [p < 0.05] and OR 4.41, 95%CI 3.68-5.28 [p < 0.05], respectively). The rate of MIBB for rural patients increased and met the 90% quality standard in 2013 and ultimately matched urban patient rates of MIBB in 2018. CONCLUSIONS: For the first time, we show that MIBB usage is above 90% in the state of Vermont and that there no longer exist disparities in breast biopsies between urban and rural patients or rural/urban facilities in the state, overall.

Identifying key barriers to effective breast cancer control in rural settings.

Breast cancer is the most common cancer and the second most common cause of cancer mortality among women in the United States. Efforts to promote breast cancer control in rural settings face specific challenges. Access to breast cancer screening, diagnosis, and treatment services is impaired by shortages of primary care and specialist providers, and geographic distance from medical facilities. Women in rural areas have comparable breast cancer mortality rates compared to women in urban settings, but this is due in large part to lower incidence rates and masks a substantial rural/urban disparity in breast cancer survival among women diagnosed with breast cancer. Mammography screening utilization rates are slightly lower among rural women than their urban counterparts, with a corresponding increase in late stage breast cancer. Differences in breast cancer survival persist after controlling for stage at diagnosis, largely due to disparities in access to treatment. Travel distance to treatment centers is the most substantial barrier to improved breast cancer outcomes in rural areas. While numerous interventions have been demonstrated in controlled studies to be effective in promoting treatment access and adherence, widespread dissemination in public health and clinical practice remains lacking. Efforts to improve breast cancer control in rural areas should focus on implementation strategies for improving access to breast cancer treatments.

Evidence-Based Performance Measures for Autologous Breast Reconstruction: An American Society of Plastic Surgeons Quality Performance Measure Set.

The American Society of Plastic Surgeons commissioned the Autologous Breast Reconstruction Performance Measure Development Work Group to identify and draft quality measures for the care of patients undergoing autologous breast reconstruction and other breast reconstruction surgery. Four outcome measures and one process measure were identified. Outcomes include patient satisfaction with information for all breast reconstruction, a subscale of the BREAST-Q, and the length of stay, operative time, and rate of blood transfusion for autologous blood transfusion. The process measure looks at coordination of care around managing the breast reconstruction patient's care, with the physician coordinating the ongoing care, be it an oncologist, radiologist, other specialist, or primary care physician. All measures in this report were approved by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons Quality and Performance Measures Work Group and the American Society of Plastic Surgeons Executive Committee. The Work Group recommends the use of these measures for quality initiatives, continuing medical education, maintenance of certification, American Society of Plastic Surgeons' Qualified Clinical Data Registry reporting, and national quality-reporting programs.

Pain Control in Breast Surgery: Survey of Current Practice and Recommendations for Optimizing Management-American Society of Breast Surgeons Opioid/Pain Control Workgroup.

INTRODUCTION: The opioid epidemic in the United States is a public health crisis. Breast surgeons are obligated to provide good pain control for their patients after surgery but also must minimize administration of narcotics to prevent a surgical episode of care from becoming a patient's gateway into opioid dependence. METHODS: A survey to ascertain pain management practice patterns after breast surgery was performed. A review of currently available literature that was specific to breast surgery was performed to create recommendations regarding pain management strategies. RESULTS: A total of 609 surgeons completed the survey and demonstrated significant variations in pain management practices, specifically within regards to utilization of regional anesthesia (e.g., nerve blocks), and quantity of prescribed narcotics. There is excellent data to guide the use of local and regional anesthesia. There are, however, fewer studies to guide narcotic recommendations; thus, these recommendations were guided by prevailing practice patterns. CONCLUSIONS: Pain management practices after breast surgery have significant variation and represent an opportunity to improve patient safety and quality of care. Multimodality approaches in conjunction with standardized quantities of narcotics are recommended.

Intraoperative Ultrasound Guidance With an Ultrasound-Visible Clip: A Practical and Cost-effective Option for Breast Cancer Localization.

OBJECTIVES: In partial mastectomy (PM) or lumpectomy, ultrasound (US) localization avoids discomfort and additional procedures associated with wire localization. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the association between ultrasound-visible clip (UVC) use at the time of biopsy and US use during resection, hypothesizing that UVCs facilitate US localization and reduce costs compared with traditional radiopaque clips or no clip placement. METHODS: The study population consisted of adult female patients with breast cancer undergoing PM or lumpectomy at our institution between 2014 and 2016. The core biopsy clip type and localization method during PM were characterized as wire localization versus US localization, and associations were estimated with multivariable regression models. For the cost evaluation, breast biopsy data were obtained from the Department of Radiology. RESULTS: Among 674 patients, 490 had data on localization and the clip type. Ultrasound-visible clip placement at biopsy increased US use during resection by 13% (95% confidence interval, 6%-21%). There was no difference in the total specimen weight with US versus wire localization. The cost savings for using UVCs for the 2209 patients who underwent breast biopsy from 2014 to 2016 was $36,000. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that US localization for PM is feasible at a single institution and cost-effective when facilitated by UVCs. Placement of a UVC at the time of biopsy is recommended, as it is cost-effective and avoids the discomfort and inconvenience of wire localization.

Detection Rates for Benign and Malignant Diagnoses on Breast Cancer Screening With Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in a Statewide Mammography Registry Study.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to determine whether detection rates of specific benign and malignant diagnoses differ for breast cancer screening with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) versus full-field digital mammography (FFDM) alone. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed observational data from the Vermont Breast Cancer Surveillance System, including 86,349 DBT screening examinations and 97,378 FFDM screening examinations performed at eight radiology facilities in Vermont that adopted DBT screening during 2012-2016. We determined the most severe diagnosis made within 6 months after positive screening examinations. Multivariable-adjusted logistic regression was used to compare detection rates for specific diagnoses on DBT versus FFDM. RESULTS: Compared with FFDM, DBT had a lower recall rate (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.81; 95% CI, 0.77-0.85) but comparable biopsy rate (OR = 1.05; 95% CI, 0.93-1.17), benign biopsy rate (OR = 1.12; 95% CI, 0.97-1.29), and cancer detection rate (OR = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.78-1.14). Among benign diagnoses, DBT and FFDM had comparable detection rates for nonproliferative lesions (OR = 1.19; 95% CI, 0.92-1.53), fibroepithelial proliferations (OR = 1.24; 95% CI, 0.85-1.81), proliferative lesions without atypia (OR = 1.13; 95% CI, 0.90-1.42), atypical lesions (OR = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.43-1.38), and lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) (OR = 0.92; 95% CI, 0.53-1.61). Among malignant diagnoses, DBT and FFDM had comparable detection rates for ductal carcinoma in situ (OR = 1.05; 95% CI, 0.70-1.57) and invasive breast cancer (OR = 0.92; 95% CI, 0.74-1.13), with no statistically significant differences in detection of invasive ductal carcinoma (OR = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.66-1.06), invasive lobular carcinoma (OR = 1.11; 95% CI, 0.59-2.07), or invasive mixed ductal-lobular carcinoma (OR = 1.49; 95% CI, 0.65-3.39). CONCLUSION: Compared with FFDM, breast cancer screening with DBT has a lower recall rate while detecting a similar distribution of benign and malignant diagnoses.

Select Choices in Benign Breast Disease: An Initiative of the American Society of Breast Surgeons for the American Board of Internal Medicine Choosing Wisely® Campaign.

BACKGROUND: Up to 50% of all women encounter benign breast problems. In contrast to breast cancer, high-level evidence is not available to guide treatment. Management is therefore largely based on individual physician experience/training. The American board of internal medicine (ABIM) initiated its Choosing Wisely® campaign to promote conversations between patients and physicians about challenging the use of tests or procedures which may not be necessary. The American society of breast surgeons (ASBrS) Patient safety and quality committee (PSQC) chose to participate in this campaign in regard to the management of benign breast disease. METHODS: The PSQC solicited initial candidate measures. PSQC surgeons represent a wide variety of practices. The resulting measures were ranked by modified Delphi appropriateness methodology in two rounds. The final list was approved by ASBrS and endorsed by the ABIM. RESULTS: The final five measures are as follows. (1) Don't routinely excise areas of pseuodoangiomatous stromal hyperplasia (PASH) of the breast in patients who are not having symptoms from it. (2) Don't routinely surgically excise biopsy-proven fibroadenomas that are < 2 cm. (3) Don't routinely operate for a breast abscess without an initial attempt to percutaneously aspirate. (4) Don't perform screening mammography in asymptomatic patients with normal exams who have less than a 5-years life expectancy. (5) Don't routinely drain nonpainful, fluid-filled cysts. CONCLUSIONS: The ASBrS Choosing Wisely® measures that address benign breast disease management are easily accessible to patients via the internet. Consensus was reached by PSQC regarding these recommendations. These measures provide guidance for shared decision-making.

Benchmarking the American Society of Breast Surgeon Member Performance for More Than a Million Quality Measure-Patient Encounters.

BACKGROUND: Nine breast cancer quality measures (QM) were selected by the American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS) for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Quality Payment Programs (QPP) and other performance improvement programs. We report member performance. STUDY DESIGN: Surgeons entered QM data into an electronic registry. For each QM, aggregate "performance met" (PM) was reported (median, range and percentiles) and benchmarks (target goals) were calculated by CMS methodology, specifically, the Achievable Benchmark of Care™ (ABC) method. RESULTS: A total of 1,286,011 QM encounters were captured from 2011-2015. For 7 QM, first and last PM rates were as follows: (1) needle biopsy (95.8, 98.5%), (2) specimen imaging (97.9, 98.8%), (3) specimen orientation (98.5, 98.3%), (4) sentinel node use (95.1, 93.4%), (5) antibiotic selection (98.0, 99.4%), (6) antibiotic duration (99.0, 99.8%), and (7) no surgical site infection (98.8, 98.9%); all p values < 0.001 for trends. Variability and reasons for noncompliance by surgeon for each QM were identified. The CMS-calculated target goals (ABC™ benchmarks) for PM for 6 QM were 100%, suggesting that not meeting performance is a "never should occur" event. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons self-reported a large number of specialty-specific patient-measure encounters into a registry for self-assessment and participation in QPP. Despite high levels of performance demonstrated initially in 2011 with minimal subsequent change, the ASBrS concluded "perfect" performance was not a realistic goal for QPP. Thus, after review of our normative performance data, the ASBrS recommended different benchmarks than CMS for each QM.

Measures of Appropriateness and Value for Breast Surgeons and Their Patients: The American Society of Breast Surgeons Choosing Wisely (®) Initiative.

BACKGROUND: Current breast cancer care is based on high-level evidence from randomized, controlled trials. Despite these data, there continues to be variability of breast cancer care, including overutilization of some tests and operations. To reduce overutilization, the American Board of Internal Medicine Choosing Wisely (®) Campaign recommends that professional organizations provide patients and providers with a list of care practices that may not be necessary. Shared decision making regarding these services is encouraged. METHODS: The Patient Safety and Quality Committee of the American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS) solicited candidate measures for the Choosing Wisely (®) Campaign. The resulting list of "appropriateness" measures of care was ranked by a modified Delphi appropriateness methodology. The highest-ranked measures were submitted to and later approved by the ASBrS Board of Directors. They are listed below. RESULTS: (1) Don't routinely order breast magnetic resonance imaging in new breast cancer patients. (2) Don't routinely excise all the lymph nodes beneath the arm in patients having lumpectomy for breast cancer. (3) Don't routinely order specialized tumor gene testing in all new breast cancer patients. (4) Don't routinely reoperate on patients with invasive cancer if the cancer is close to the edge of the excised lumpectomy tissue. (5) Don't routinely perform a double mastectomy in patients who have a single breast with cancer. CONCLUSIONS: The ASBrS list for the Choosing Wisely (®) campaign is easily accessible to breast cancer patients online. These measures provide surgeons and their patients with a starting point for shared decision making regarding potentially unnecessary testing and operations.

Surgical margin reporting in breast conserving surgery: Does compliance with guidelines affect re-excision and mastectomy rates?

PURPOSE: Margin status is important in guiding decisions to re-excise following breast-conserving surgery (BCS) for breast cancer. The College of American Pathologists (CAP) developed guidelines to standardize pathology reporting; however, compliance with margin documentation guidelines has been shown to vary. The aim of this retrospective study was to determine whether compliance with CAP guidelines affects re-excision and mastectomy rates. METHODS: We identified 1423 patients diagnosed with breast cancer between 1998 and 2006 who underwent BCS with negative margins. CAP compliance was categorized as maximal, minimal, or non-compliant. Statistical analyses were performed comparing the frequency of re-excision and mastectomy after initial BCS according to CAP margin reporting guideline compliance. Data were adjusted for provider facility by including a clustering variable within the regression model. RESULTS: Patients with non-compliant margin reporting were 1.7 times more likely to undergo re-excision and/or mastectomy than those with maximally compliant reporting. Level of compliance was most strongly associated with the frequency of mastectomy; non-compliant margin reporting was associated with a 2.5-fold increase in mastectomy rates compared to maximally compliant reporting. The results did not substantially change when the analyses accounted for clustering at the provider facility level. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that compliance with CAP guidelines in pathology reporting may be associated with variation in re-excision and mastectomy rates following BCS.

The impact of cancer diagnosis on employment: is there a difference between rural and urban populations?

PURPOSE: To determine if living in a rural or urban area influences the impact of cancer diagnosis on employment. METHOD: Surveys that asked about changes in employment status related to a cancer diagnosis or treatment were sent to 2,005 cancer survivors enrolled in the Vermont Cancer Survivor Surveillance Registry. Data on cancers were obtained from hospital cancer registries. Respondents indicating that they were working at the time of diagnosis were included in this study for a total of 1,155 participants. Associations between rural or urban residence and changes in employment were assessed by chi-square tests and logistic regression. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in the proportions of rural and urban survivors working fewer hours, experiencing a career change or unable to work. However, a larger proportion of rural than urban patients retired early after their diagnosis (11.1 vs. 7.2%, p = 0.031). There were also fewer rural patients that reported that they went on paid disability during cancer treatment (12.3 vs. 17.0%, p = 0.030). CONCLUSIONS: While many patients will return to work after treatment for a cancer diagnosis, it appears that rural patients may be less likely to receive paid disability and more likely to retire early. It is possible that rural populations engage in more physically demanding jobs that they are unable to continue after their cancer treatment. Additionally the types of manual labor available in rural areas rarely offer disability benefits, increasing the impact of cancer diagnosis for this population. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: A cancer diagnosis may have a greater impact on employment among rural residents. Cancer programs should recognize this disparity and enhance return to work and disability counseling in patients from rural areas.