Relative timing of mammography and MRI for breast cancer screening: Impact on performance evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: Mammography and MRI screening typically occur in combination or in alternating sequence. We compared multimodality screening performance accounting for the relative timing of mammography and MRI and overlapping follow-up periods. METHODS: We identified 8,260 screening mammograms performed 2005-2017 in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, paired with screening MRIs within +/- 90 days (combined screening) or 91-270 days (alternating screening). Performance for combined screening [cancer detection rate (CDR) per 1000 examinations and sensitivity] was calculated with one-year follow-up for each modality, and with a single follow-up period treating the two tests as a single test. Alternating screening performance was calculated with one-year follow-up for each modality and also with follow-up ending at the next screen if within one year (truncated follow-up). RESULTS: For 3,810 combined screening pairs, CDR per 1000 screens was 6.8 (95%CI: 4.6-10.0) for mammography and 12.3 (95%CI: 9.3-16.4) for MRI as separate tests compared to 13.1 (95%CI: 10.0-17.3) as a single combined test. Sensitivity of each test was 48.1% (35.0%-61.5%) for mammography and 79.7% (95%CI: 67.7-88.0%) for MRI compared to 96.2% (95%CI: 85.9-99.0%) for combined screening. For 4,450 alternating screening pairs, mammography CDR per 1000 screens changed from 3.6 (95%CI: 2.2-5.9) to zero with truncated follow-up; sensitivity was incalculable (denominator=0). MRI CDR per 1000 screens changed from 12.1 (95%CI 9.3-15.8) to 11.7 (95%CI: 8.9-15.3) with truncated follow-up; sensitivity changed from 75.0% (95%CI 63.8-83.6%) to 86.7% (95%CI 75.5-93.2%). DISCUSSION: Updating auditing approaches to account for combined and alternating screening sequencing and to address outcome attribution issues arising from overlapping follow-up periods can improve the accuracy of multimodality screening performance evaluation.

Comparing characteristics of individuals screened for lung cancer with 2021 versus 2013 USPSTF recommendations.

We conducted a cross-sectional multi-center study to compare the demographics, clinical characteristics, and lung cancer screening (LCS) results among those eligible for LCS per 2013 vs 2021 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations. Statistical tests are two-sided, with p < .05 considered statistically significant. Among 17,702 screened individuals (85.2% 2013 Eligible, 14.8% 2021 Newly Eligible), a higher proportion of those screened per 2021 vs 2013 criteria were female (56.1% vs 48.1%, p < .0001) and non-Hispanic Black (19.3% vs 13.4%, p < .0001). The risk of developing and dying from lung cancer per 1000 was statistically significantly higher among those eligible per 2013 vs 2021 criteria. A higher proportion of LCS exams had an increased suspicion of lung cancer in the 2013 vs 2021 criteria groups. Our data suggest that, as intended, updated 2021 USPSTF recommendations are leading to a higher proportion of LCS exams among non-Hispanic Black individuals and women.

Statewide Survey of Primary Care and Subspecialty Providers on Hepatocellular Carcinoma Risk-Stratification and Surveillance Practices.

BACKGROUND: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) surveillance in patients with cirrhosis is associated with improved survival. Provision of HCC surveillance is low in the US, particularly in primary care settings. AIMS: To evaluate current hepatitis C virus (HCV) and HCC surveillance practices and physician attitudes regarding HCC risk-stratification among primary care and subspecialty providers. METHODS: Using the Tailored Design Method, we delivered a 34-item online survey to 7654 North Carolina-licensed internal/family medicine or gastroenterology/hepatology physicians and advanced practice providers in 2022. We included the domains of HCV treatment, cirrhosis diagnosis, HCC surveillance practices, barriers to surveillance, and interest in risk-stratification tools. We performed descriptive analyses to summarize responses. Tabulations were weighted based on sampling weights accounting for non-response and inter-specialty comparisons were made using chi-squared or t test statistics. RESULTS: After exclusions, 266 responses were included in the final sample (response rate 3.8%). Most respondents (78%) diagnosed cirrhosis using imaging and a minority used non-invasive tests that were blood-based (~ 15%) or transient elastography (31%). Compared to primary care providers, subspecialists were more likely to perform HCC surveillance every 6-months (vs annual) (98% vs 35%, p < 0.0001). Most respondents (80%) believed there were strong data to support HCC surveillance, but primary care providers did not know which liver disease patients needed surveillance. Most providers (> 70%) expressed interest in potential solutions to improve HCC risk-stratification. CONCLUSIONS: In this statewide survey, there were great knowledge gaps in HCC surveillance among PCPs and most respondents expressed interest in strategies to increase appropriate HCC surveillance.

Breast density knowledge and willingness to delay treatment for pre-operative breast cancer imaging among women with a personal history of breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Following a breast cancer diagnosis, it is uncertain whether women's breast density knowledge influences their willingness to undergo pre-operative imaging to detect additional cancer in their breasts. We evaluated women's breast density knowledge and their willingness to delay treatment for pre-operative testing. METHODS: We surveyed women identified in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium aged ≥ 18 years, with first breast cancer diagnosed within the prior 6-18 months, who had at least one breast density measurement within the 5 years prior to their diagnosis. We assessed women's breast density knowledge and correlates of willingness to delay treatment for 6 or more weeks for pre-operative imaging via logistic regression. RESULTS: Survey participation was 28.3% (969/3,430). Seventy-two percent (469/647) of women with dense and 11% (34/322) with non-dense breasts correctly knew their density (p < 0.001); 69% (665/969) of all women knew dense breasts make it harder to detect cancers on a mammogram; and 29% (285/969) were willing to delay treatment ≥ 6 weeks to undergo pre-operative imaging. Willingness to delay treatment did not differ by self-reported density (OR:0.99 for non-dense vs. dense; 95%CI: 0.50-1.96). Treatment with chemotherapy was associated with less willingness to delay treatment (OR:0.67; 95%CI: 0.46-0.96). Having previously delayed breast cancer treatment more than 3 months was associated with an increased willingness to delay treatment for pre-operative imaging (OR:2.18; 95%CI: 1.26-3.77). CONCLUSIONS: Understanding of personal breast density was not associated with willingness to delay treatment 6 or more weeks for pre-operative imaging, but aspects of a woman's treatment experience were. CLINICALTRIALS: GOV : NCT02980848 registered December 2, 2016.

Prevalence of Lung Cancer Screening in the US, 2022.

This cross-sectional study compares lung cancer screening prevalence in 2022 among individuals eligible by 2021 vs 2013 criteria by sociodemographics and state.

Multilevel contributors to racial and ethnic inequities in the resolution of abnormal mammography results.

PURPOSE: Multiple ecological levels influence racial inequities in the completion of diagnostic testing after receiving abnormal mammography results (diagnostic resolution). Yet, few studies examine more than two ecological levels. We investigated the contributions of county, imaging facility, and patient characteristics on our primary and secondary outcomes, the achievement of diagnostic resolution by (1)Black women and Latinas, and (2) the entire sample. We hypothesized that women of color would be less likely to achieve resolution than their White counterparts, and this relationship would be mediated by imaging facility features and moderated by county characteristics. METHODS: Records for 25,144 women with abnormal mammograms between 2011 and 2019 from the Carolina Mammography Registry were merged with publicly available county data. Diagnostic resolution was operationalized as the percentage of women achieving resolution within 60 days of receiving abnormal results and overall time to resolution and examined using mixed effects logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard models, respectively. RESULTS: Women of color with abnormal screening mammograms were less likely to achieve resolution within 60 days compared with White women (OR 0.83, CI 0.78-0.89; OR 0.74, CI.60-0.91, respectively) and displayed longer resolution times (HR 0.87, CI 0.84-0.91; HR 0.78, CI 0.68-0.89). Residential segregation had a moderating effect, with Black women in more segregated counties being less likely to achieve resolution by 60 days but lost statistical significance after adjustment. No mediators were discovered. CONCLUSION: More work is needed to understand how imaging center and community characteristics impact racial inequities in resolution and resolution in general.

Understanding mechanisms of racial disparities in breast cancer: an assessment of screening and regular care in the Carolina Breast Cancer Study.

PURPOSE: Screening history influences stage at detection, but regular preventive care may also influence breast tumor diagnostic characteristics. Few studies have evaluated healthcare utilization (both screening and primary care) in racially diverse screening-eligible populations. METHODS: This analysis included 2,058 women age 45-74 (49% Black) from the Carolina Breast Cancer Study, a population-based cohort of women diagnosed with invasive breast cancer between 2008 and 2013. Screening history (threshold 0.5 mammograms per year) and pre-diagnostic healthcare utilization (i.e. regular care, based on responses to "During the past ten years, who did you usually see when you were sick or needed advice about your health?") were assessed as binary exposures. The relationship between healthcare utilization and tumor characteristics were evaluated overall and race-stratified. RESULTS: Among those lacking screening, Black participants had larger tumors (5 + cm) (frequency 19.6% vs 11.5%, relative frequency difference (RFD) = 8.1%, 95% CI 2.8-13.5), but race differences were attenuated among screening-adherent participants (10.2% vs 7.0%, RFD = 3.2%, 0.2-6.2). Similar trends were observed for tumor stage and mode of detection (mammogram vs lump). Among all participants, those lacking both screening and regular care had larger tumors (21% vs 8%, RR = 2.51, 1.76-3.56) and advanced (3B +) stage (19% vs 6%, RR = 3.15, 2.15-4.63) compared to the referent category (screening-adherent and regular care). Under-use of regular care and screening was more prevalent in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas of North Carolina. CONCLUSIONS: Access to regular care is an important safeguard for earlier detection. Our data suggest that health equity interventions should prioritize both primary care and screening.

Extending the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium Model of Invasive Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: We extended the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) version 2 (v2) model of invasive breast cancer risk to include BMI, extended family history of breast cancer, and age at first live birth (version 3 [v3]) to better inform appropriate breast cancer prevention therapies and risk-based screening. METHODS: We used Cox proportional hazards regression to estimate the age- and race- and ethnicity-specific relative hazards for family history of breast cancer, breast density, history of benign breast biopsy, BMI, and age at first live birth for invasive breast cancer in the BCSC cohort. We evaluated calibration using the ratio of expected-to-observed (E/O) invasive breast cancers in the cohort and discrimination using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). RESULTS: We analyzed data from 1,455,493 women age 35-79 years without a history of breast cancer. During a mean follow-up of 7.3 years, 30,266 women were diagnosed with invasive breast cancer. The BCSC v3 model had an E/O of 1.03 (95% CI, 1.01 to 1.04) and an AUROC of 0.646 for 5-year risk. Compared with the v2 model, discrimination of the v3 model improved most in Asian, White, and Black women. Among women with a BMI of 30.0-34.9 kg/m2, the true-positive rate in women with an estimated 5-year risk of 3% or higher increased from 10.0% (v2) to 19.8% (v3) and the improvement was greater among women with a BMI of ≥35 kg/m2 (7.6%-19.8%). CONCLUSION: The BCSC v3 model updates an already well-calibrated and validated breast cancer risk assessment tool to include additional important risk factors. The inclusion of BMI was associated with the largest improvement in estimated risk for individual women.

Supplemental magnetic resonance imaging plus mammography compared with magnetic resonance imaging or mammography by extent of breast density.

BACKGROUND: Examining screening outcomes by breast density for breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with or without mammography could inform discussions about supplemental MRI in women with dense breasts. METHODS: We evaluated 52 237 women aged 40-79 years who underwent 2611 screening MRIs alone and 6518 supplemental MRI plus mammography pairs propensity score-matched to 65 810 screening mammograms. Rates per 1000 examinations of interval, advanced, and screen-detected early stage invasive cancers and false-positive recall and biopsy recommendation were estimated by breast density (nondense = almost entirely fatty or scattered fibroglandular densities; dense = heterogeneously/extremely dense) adjusting for registry, examination year, age, race and ethnicity, family history of breast cancer, and prior breast biopsy. RESULTS: Screen-detected early stage cancer rates were statistically higher for MRI plus mammography vs mammography for nondense (9.3 vs 2.9; difference = 6.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.5 to 10.3) and dense (7.5 vs 3.5; difference = 4.0, 95% CI = 1.4 to 6.7) breasts and for MRI vs MRI plus mammography for dense breasts (19.2 vs 7.5; difference = 11.7, 95% CI = 4.6 to 18.8). Interval rates were not statistically different for MRI plus mammography vs mammography for nondense (0.8 vs 0.5; difference = 0.4, 95% CI = -0.8 to 1.6) or dense breasts (1.5 vs 1.4; difference = 0.0, 95% CI = -1.2 to 1.3), nor were advanced cancer rates. Interval rates were not statistically different for MRI vs MRI plus mammography for nondense (2.6 vs 0.8; difference = 1.8 (95% CI = -2.0 to 5.5) or dense breasts (0.6 vs 1.5; difference = -0.9, 95% CI = -2.5 to 0.7), nor were advanced cancer rates. False-positive recall and biopsy recommendation rates were statistically higher for MRI groups than mammography alone. CONCLUSION: MRI screening with or without mammography increased rates of screen-detected early stage cancer and false-positives for women with dense breasts without a concomitant decrease in advanced or interval cancers.

Digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis for detecting invasive lobular and ductal carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) is a distinct histological subtype of breast cancer that can make early detection with mammography challenging. We compared imaging performance of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) to digital mammography (DM) for diagnoses of ILC, invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC), and invasive mixed carcinoma (IMC) in a screening population. METHODS: We included screening exams (DM; n = 1,715,249 or DBT; n = 414,793) from 2011 to 2018 among 839,801 women in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Examinations were followed for one year to ascertain incident ILC, IDC, or IMC. We measured cancer detection rate (CDR) and interval invasive cancer rate/1000 screening examinations for each histological subtype and stratified by breast density and modality. We calculated relative risk (RR) for DM vs. DBT using log-binomial models to adjust for the propensity of receiving DBT vs. DM. RESULTS: Unadjusted CDR per 1000 mammograms of ILC overall was 0.33 (95%CI: 0.30-0.36) for DM; 0.45 (95%CI: 0.39-0.52) for DBT, and for women with dense breasts- 0.33 (95%CI: 0.29-0.37) for DM and 0.54 (95%CI: 0.43-0.66) for DBT. Similar results were noted for IDC and IMC. Adjusted models showed a significantly increased RR for cancer detection with DBT compared to DM among women with dense breasts for all three histologies (RR; 95%CI: ILC 1.53; 1.09-2.14, IDC 1.21; 1.02-1.44, IMC 1.76; 1.30-2.38), but no significant increase among women with non-dense breasts. CONCLUSION: DBT was associated with higher CDR for ILC, IDC, and IMC for women with dense breasts. Early detection of ILC with DBT may improve outcomes for this distinct clinical entity.

Racial and Ethnic Variation in Diagnostic Mammography Performance among Women Reporting a Breast Lump.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated diagnostic mammography among women with a breast lump to determine whether performance varied across racial and ethnic groups. METHODS: This study included 51,014 diagnostic mammograms performed between 2005 and 2018 in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium among Asian/Pacific Islander (12%), Black (7%), Hispanic/Latina (6%), and White (75%) women reporting a lump. Breast cancers occurring within 1 year were ascertained from cancer registry linkages. Multivariable regression was used to adjust performance statistic comparisons for breast cancer risk factors, mammogram modality, demographics, additional imaging, and imaging facility. RESULTS: Cancer detection rates were highest among Asian/Pacific Islander [per 1,000 exams, 84.2 (95% confidence interval (CI): 72.0-98.2)] and Black women [81.4 (95% CI: 69.4-95.2)] and lowest among Hispanic/Latina women [42.9 (95% CI: 34.2-53.6)]. Positive predictive values (PPV) were higher among Black [37.0% (95% CI: 31.2-43.3)] and White [37.0% (95% CI: 30.0-44.6)] women and lowest among Hispanic/Latina women [22.0% (95% CI: 17.2-27.7)]. False-positive results were most common among Asian/Pacific Islander women [per 1,000 exams, 183.9 (95% CI: 126.7-259.2)] and lowest among White women [112.4 (95% CI: 86.1-145.5)]. After adjustment, false-positive and cancer detection rates remained higher for Asian/Pacific Islander and Black women (vs. Hispanic/Latina and White). Adjusted PPV was highest among Asian/Pacific Islander women. CONCLUSIONS: Among women with a lump, Asian/Pacific Islander and Black women were more likely to have cancer detected and more likely to receive a false-positive result compared with White and Hispanic/Latina women. IMPACT: Strategies for optimizing diagnostic mammography among women with a lump may vary by racial/ethnic group, but additional factors that influence performance differences need to be identified. See related In the Spotlight, p. 1479.

Communication of Positive Lung Cancer Screening Findings and Receipt of Recommended Follow-up Care.

This cohort study evaluates associations of communication methods and content of positive lung cancer screening findings with receipt of recommended follow-up care.

Hepatocellular Carcinoma Surveillance among Individuals with Cirrhosis: Trends by Payer, Etiology, and Calendar Year, from a Statewide, Multi-Payer Dataset, 2010-2018.

BACKGROUND: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) surveillance is underutilized, with <25% of individuals with cirrhosis receiving surveillance exams as recommended. The epidemiology of cirrhosis and HCC in the United States has also shifted in recent years, but little is known about recent trends in surveillance utilization. We characterized patterns of HCC surveillance by payer, cirrhosis etiology, and calendar year in insured individuals with cirrhosis. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of individuals with cirrhosis using claims data from Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurance plans in North Carolina. We included individuals ≥ 18 years with a first occurrence of an ICD-9/10 code for cirrhosis between January 1, 2010, and June 30, 2018. The outcome was HCC surveillance by abdominal ultrasound, CT, or MRI. We estimated 1- and 2-year cumulative incidences for HCC surveillance and assessed longitudinal adherence to surveillance by computing the proportion of time covered (PTC). RESULTS: Among 46,052 individuals, 71% were enrolled through Medicare, 15% through Medicaid, and 14% through private insurance. The overall 1-year cumulative incidence of HCC surveillance was 49% and the 2-year cumulative incidence was 55%. For those with an initial screen in the first 6 months of their cirrhosis diagnosis, the median 2-year PTC was 67% (Q1, 38%; Q3, 100%). CONCLUSIONS: HCC surveillance initiation after cirrhosis diagnosis remains low, though it has improved slightly over time, particularly among individuals with Medicaid. IMPACT: This study provides insight into recent trends in HCC surveillance and highlights areas to target for future interventions, particularly among patients with nonviral etiologies.

Digital Breast Tomosynthesis versus Digital Mammography Screening Performance on Successive Screening Rounds from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.

Background Prior cross-sectional studies have observed that breast cancer screening with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) has a lower recall rate and higher cancer detection rate compared with digital mammography (DM). Purpose To evaluate breast cancer screening outcomes with DBT versus DM on successive screening rounds. Materials and Methods In this retrospective cohort study, data from 58 breast imaging facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium were collected. Analysis included women aged 40-79 years undergoing DBT or DM screening from 2011 to 2020. Absolute differences in screening outcomes by modality and screening round were estimated during the study period by using generalized estimating equations with marginal standardization to adjust for differences in women's risk characteristics across modality and round. Results A total of 523 485 DBT examinations (mean age of women, 58.7 years ± 9.7 [SD]) and 1 008 123 DM examinations (mean age, 58.4 years ± 9.8) among 504 863 women were evaluated. DBT and DM recall rates decreased with successive screening round, but absolute recall rates in each round were significantly lower with DBT versus DM (round 1 difference, -3.3% [95% CI: -4.6, -2.1] [P < .001]; round 2 difference, -1.8% [95% CI: -2.9, -0.7] [P = .003]; round 3 or above difference, -1.2% [95% CI: -2.4, -0.1] [P = .03]). DBT had significantly higher cancer detection (difference, 0.6 per 1000 examinations [95% CI: 0.2, 1.1]; P = .009) compared with DM only for round 3 and above. There were no significant differences in interval cancer rate (round 1 difference, 0.00 per 1000 examinations [95% CI: -0.24, 0.30] [P = .96]; round 2 or above difference, 0.04 [95% CI: -0.19, 0.31] [P = .76]) or total advanced cancer rate (round 1 difference, 0.00 per 1000 examinations [95% CI: -0.15, 0.19] [P = .94]; round 2 or above difference, -0.06 [95% CI: -0.18, 0.11] [P = .43]). Conclusion DBT had lower recall rates and could help detect more cancers than DM across three screening rounds, with no difference in interval or advanced cancer rates. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Skaane in this issue.

National Performance Benchmarks for Screening Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Update from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.

Background It is important to establish screening mammography performance benchmarks for quality improvement efforts. Purpose To establish performance benchmarks for digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening and evaluate performance trends over time in U.S. community practice. Materials and Methods In this retrospective study, DBT screening examinations were collected from five Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) registries between 2011 and 2018. Performance measures included abnormal interpretation rate (AIR), cancer detection rate (CDR), sensitivity, specificity, and false-negative rate (FNR) and were calculated based on the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, fifth edition, and compared with concurrent BCSC DM screening examinations, previously published BCSC and National Mammography Database benchmarks, and expert opinion acceptable performance ranges. Benchmarks were derived from the distribution of performance measures across radiologists (n = 84 or n = 73 depending on metric) and were presented as percentiles. Results A total of 896 101 women undergoing 2 301 766 screening examinations (458 175 DBT examinations [median age, 58 years; age range, 18-111 years] and 1 843 591 DM examinations [median age, 58 years; age range, 18-109 years]) were included in this study. DBT screening performance measures were as follows: AIR, 8.3% (95% CI: 7.5, 9.3); CDR per 1000 screens, 5.8 (95% CI: 5.4, 6.1); sensitivity, 87.4% (95% CI: 85.2, 89.4); specificity, 92.2% (95% CI: 91.3, 93.0); and FNR per 1000 screens, 0.8 (95% CI: 0.7, 1.0). When compared with BCSC DM screening examinations from the same time period and previously published BCSC and National Mammography Database performance benchmarks, all performance measures were higher for DBT except sensitivity and FNR, which were similar to concurrent and prior DM performance measures. The following proportions of radiologists achieved acceptable performance ranges with DBT: 97.6% for CDR, 91.8% for sensitivity, 75.0% for AIR, and 74.0% for specificity. Conclusion In U.S. community practice, large proportions of radiologists met acceptable performance ranges for screening performance metrics with DBT. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Lee and Moy in this issue.

Breast exam use during the protracted COVID-19 pandemic, by age, race, and geography.

In this study we analyzed data collected from the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic through March 31, 2022, to identify temporal shifts in breast exam volume. Screening mammography volume stabilized toward the end of the study period, and diagnostic exam volume varied over time and by age. Older women experienced a decline in diagnostic exam volume between August 2020 and April 2021 that was not observed among women aged younger than 50 years (50-69 years: monthly percentage change [MPC] = -6.5%; and 70 years and older: MPC = -15.7%). With respect to breast biopsy volume, women aged younger than 70 years had increased exam volume beginning in April 2020 and June 2020, whereas a corresponding increase among older women was delayed until April 2021 (70 years and older: MPC = 9.3%). Findings from our study suggest a temporal shift in the use of breast exams that could result in differential detection of breast cancer by age.

An Exploratory Multi-Case Study of the Health and Wellbeing Needs, Relationships and Experiences of Health and Social Care Service Users and the People who Support them at Home.

Introduction: International policies and legislation set a precedence of person-centred sustainable integrated Health and Social Care (HSC) that meets the health and wellbeing needs of service users through improved experiences. However, current research focuses on service models, with fewer studies investigating experiences and needs. Methods: This qualitative multi-case [n = 7] study was co-designed with key stakeholders and aimed to explore experiences and needs of people who access and provide HSC at home. Data were collected in a regional area of Scotland (UK) via single [n = 10] or dyad [n = 4] semi-structured interviews with service users [n = 6], informal carers [n = 5] and HSC staff [n = 7] and synthesised using Interpretive Thematic Analysis. Findings: Interpersonal connections and supportive relationships were instrumental in helping all participant groups feel able to cope with their changing HSC needs and roles. They promoted reassurance, information sharing and reduced anxiety; when they were lacking, it negatively impacted upon experiences of HSC. Discussion: Promoting inter-personal connections that encourage supportive relationships between people who access and provide HSC and their communities, could promote person-centred Relationship-based care and improve HSC experiences. Conclusions: This study identifies indicators for improved HSC, advocating co-produced community-driven services to meet the self-defined needs of those who access and provide care.

Variation in second breast cancer risk after primary invasive cancer by time since primary cancer diagnosis and estrogen receptor status.

BACKGROUND: In women with previously treated breast cancer, occurrence and timing of second breast cancers have implications for surveillance. The authors examined the timing of second breast cancers by primary cancer estrogen receptor (ER) status in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. METHODS: Women who were diagnosed with American Joint Commission on Cancer stage I-III breast cancer were identified within six Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium registries from 2000 to 2017. Characteristics collected at primary breast cancer diagnosis included demographics, ER status, and treatment. Second breast cancer events included subsequent ipsilateral or contralateral breast cancers diagnosed >6 months after primary diagnosis. The authors examined cumulative incidence and second breast cancer rates by primary cancer ER status during 1-5 versus 6-10 years after diagnosis. RESULTS: At 10 years, the cumulative second breast cancer incidence was 11.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 10.7%-13.1%) for women with ER-negative disease and 7.5% (95% CI, 7.0%-8.0%) for those with ER-positive disease. Women with ER-negative cancer had higher second breast cancer rates than those with ER-positive cancer during the first 5 years of follow-up (16.0 per 1000 person-years [PY]; 95% CI, 14.2-17.9 per 1000 PY; vs. 7.8 per 1000 PY; 95% CI, 7.3-8.4 per 1000 PY, respectively). After 5 years, second breast cancer rates were similar for women with ER-negative versus ER-positive breast cancer (12.1 per 1000 PY; 95% CI, 9.9-14.7; vs. 9.3 per 1000 PY; 95% CI, 8.4-10.3 per 1000 PY, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: ER-negative primary breast cancers are associated with a higher risk of second breast cancers than ER-positive cancers during the first 5 years after diagnosis. Further study is needed to examine the potential benefit of more intensive surveillance targeting these women in the early postdiagnosis period.

Performance of Statistical and Machine Learning Risk Prediction Models for Surveillance Benefits and Failures in Breast Cancer Survivors.

BACKGROUND: Machine learning (ML) approaches facilitate risk prediction model development using high-dimensional predictors and higher-order interactions at the cost of model interpretability and transparency. We compared the relative predictive performance of statistical and ML models to guide modeling strategy selection for surveillance mammography outcomes in women with a personal history of breast cancer (PHBC). METHODS: We cross-validated seven risk prediction models for two surveillance outcomes, failure (breast cancer within 12 months of a negative surveillance mammogram) and benefit (surveillance-detected breast cancer). We included 9,447 mammograms (495 failures, 1,414 benefits, and 7,538 nonevents) from years 1996 to 2017 using a 1:4 matched case-control samples of women with PHBC in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. We assessed model performance of conventional regression, regularized regressions (LASSO and elastic-net), and ML methods (random forests and gradient boosting machines) by evaluating their calibration and, among well-calibrated models, comparing the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: LASSO and elastic-net consistently provided well-calibrated predicted risks for surveillance failure and benefit. The AUCs of LASSO and elastic-net were both 0.63 (95% CI, 0.60-0.66) for surveillance failure and 0.66 (95% CI, 0.64-0.68) for surveillance benefit, the highest among well-calibrated models. CONCLUSIONS: For predicting breast cancer surveillance mammography outcomes, regularized regression outperformed other modeling approaches and balanced the trade-off between model flexibility and interpretability. IMPACT: Regularized regression may be preferred for developing risk prediction models in other contexts with rare outcomes, similar training sample sizes, and low-dimensional features.