Utilization of Computer-Aided Detection for Digital Screening Mammography in the United States, 2008 to 2016.

PURPOSE: Computer-aided detection (CAD) for screening mammography is a software technology designed to improve radiologists' reading performance. Since 2007, multiple Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium research papers have shown that CAD decreases performance by increasing recalls and decreasing the detection of invasive cancer while increasing the detection of ductal carcinoma in situ. The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that CAD use by digital mammography facilities would decrease over time. METHODS: In August 2007, August 2011, and March 2016, the FDA database of certified mammography facilities was accessed, and a random sample of 400 of approximately 8,500 total facilities was generated. In 2008 and 2011, a telephone survey was conducted of the facilities regarding digital mammography and CAD use. In 2016, facility websites were reviewed before calling the facilities. Bonferroni-corrected P values were used to assess statistical differences in the proportion of CAD at digital facilities for the three surveys. RESULTS: The mean proportion of digital facilities using CAD was 91.4%, including 91.4% (128 of 140) in 2008, 90.2% (238 of 264) in 2011, and 92.3% (358 of 388) in 2016. The difference for 2008 versus 2011 was 1.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.5% to 7.7%), for 2011 versus 2016 was -2.1% (95% CI, -6.9% to 2.7%), and for 2008 versus 2016 was -0.8% (95% CI, -6.7% to 5.0%). CONCLUSIONS: In three national surveys, it was found that CAD use at US digital screening mammography facilities was stable from 2008 to 2016. This persistent utilization is relevant to the debate on the value of targeting ductal carcinoma in situ in screening.

Four Principles to Consider Before Advising Women on Screening Mammography.

This article reviews four important screening principles applicable to screening mammography in order to facilitate informed choice. The first principle is that screening may help, hurt, or have no effect. In order to reduce mortality and mastectomy rates, screening must reduce the rate of advanced disease, which likely has not happened. Through overdiagnosis, screening produces substantial harm by increasing both lumpectomy and mastectomy rates, which offsets the often-promised benefit of less invasive therapy. Next, all-cause mortality is the most reliable way to measure the efficacy of a screening intervention. Disease-specific mortality is biased due to difficulties in attribution of cause of death and to increased mortality due to overdiagnosis and the resulting overtreatment with radiotherapy and chemotherapy. To enhance participation, the benefit from screening is often presented in relative instead of absolute terms. Third, some screening statistics must be interpreted with caution. Increased survival time and the percentage of early-stage tumors at detection sound plausible, but are affected by lead-time and length biases. In addition, analyses that only include women who attend screening cannot reliably correct for selection bias. The final principle is that accounting for tumor biology is important for accurate estimates of lead time, and the potential benefit from screening. Since "early detection" is actually late in a tumor's lifetime, the time window when screen detection might extend a woman's life is narrow, as many tumors that can form metastases will already have done so. Instead of encouraging screening mammography, physicians should help women make an informed decision as with any medical intervention.

Promoting screening mammography: insight or uptake?

The US Preventive Services Task Force has emphasized individualized decision-making regarding participation in screening mammography for women ages 40 to 49. Positive public opinion regarding screening mammography is understandable given that screening advocates have heavily promoted the slogan "early detection saves lives" while ignoring screening harms. The goal of mammography screening advocates is to increase screening participation or uptake. The purpose of this paper is to promote physician and patient insight by presenting the age-related benefit and harms of screening. At age 50, routine screening saves approximately 1 woman per 1000 over 10 years. The life-saving proportion of screen-detected cancers is 5%, which means mammograms must detect 21 cancers to save one life. Almost half of screen-detected cancers represent pseudo-disease and would never become symptomatic yet alone lethal during a woman's lifetime. Consequently, 40- and 50-year-old women are 10 times more likely to experience overdiagnosis and overtreatment than to have their lives saved. Analysis of events and outcomes per single screening round for women ages 40 to 49 show that approximately 9600 screening mammograms, 960 diagnostic exams, and 90 to 140 biopsies are required to save one life. Given the substantial harms of screening, advocates should refocus their priority from promoting uptake to promoting insight.

What is the point: will screening mammography save my life?

BACKGROUND: We analyzed the claim "mammography saves lives" by calculating the life-saving absolute benefit of screening mammography in reducing breast cancer mortality in women ages 40 to 65. METHODS: To calculate the absolute benefit, we first estimated the screen-free absolute death risk from breast cancer by adjusting the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Program 15-year cumulative breast cancer mortality to account for the separate effects of screening mammography and improved therapy. We calculated the absolute risk reduction (reduction in absolute death risk), the number needed to screen assuming repeated screening, and the survival percentages without and with screening. We varied the relative risk reduction from 10%-30% based on the randomized trials of screening mammography. We developed additional variations of the absolute risk reduction for a screening intervention, including the average benefit of a single screen, as well as the life-saving proportion among patients with earlier cancer detection. RESULTS: Because the screen-free absolute death risk is approximately 1% overall but rises with age, the relative risk reduction from repeated screening mammography is about 100 times the absolute risk reduction between the starting ages of 50 and 60. Assuming a base case 20% relative risk reduction, repeated screening starting at age 50 saves about 1.8 (overall range, 0.9-2.7) lives over 15 years for every 1000 women screened. The number needed to screen repeatedly is 1000/1.8, or 570. The survival percentage is 99.12% without and 99.29% with screening. The average benefit of a single screening mammogram is 0.034%, or 2970 women must be screened once to save one life. Mammography saves 4.3% of screen-detectable cancer patients' lives starting at age 50. This means 23 cancers must be found starting at age 50, or 27 cancers at age 40 and 21 cancers at age 65, to save one life. CONCLUSION: The life-saving absolute benefit of screening mammography increases with age as the absolute death risk increases. The number of events needed to save one life varies depending on the prospective screening subset or reference class. Less than 5% of women with screen-detectable cancers have their lives saved.