Cat scratch disease unveils hidden breast carcinoma: A diagnostic twist.

Cat scratch disease is a rare condition that can present with different clinical manifestations, including axillary lymphadenopathy. Here, we report the case of a 45-year-old female who presented with axillary lymphadenopathy attributable to a process of differential diagnosis to cat scratch disease. During the thorough investigation of her condition, a routine mammogram was performed, due to the unilateral axillary lymphadenopathy, revealing the presence of previously undiagnosed breast carcinoma in situ; in fact, a DCIS (invasive ductal carcinoma with spread to the ipsilateral axillary nodes) was incidentally found. This case highlights the importance of comprehensive differential diagnosis and a multidisciplinary approach in managing patients with atypical presentations of common diseases, given that other alarming but unrelated findings are visible.

Breast calcifications on mammography from systemic amyloidosis: A case report.

Calcifications on mammography from systemic disease at times meet diagnostic criteria for histologic sampling to exclude malignancy. We present a case of bilateral groups of new calcifications on mammography that yielded amyloidosis on core biopsy. Awareness of our patient's known diagnosis of systemic light chain amyloidosis (AL) prompted use of Congo red staining to confirm the histologic diagnosis. Knowledge of systemic diseases with possible manifestations on mammography can facilitate cogent and clinically relevant radiology-pathology correlation.

Trabecular thickening on mammography post-COVID vaccine and RSV vaccine: Case report.

Ipsilateral axillary adenopathy post-COVID mRNA vaccine has been widely reported and guidelines for management have been established. Isolated changes of axillary tail trabecular thickening without associated adenopathy in the breast present a diagnostic dilemma and no official guidelines have thus far been reported. This finding has been reported after COVID mRNA vaccine and has never been reported with any other vaccine. We report on a patient with such changes on screening mammography 1.5 months after the fifth dose of a COVID-mRNA vaccine and 1 week after RSV vaccine. This raises the possibility that such changes can be seen with vaccines other than the COVID mRNA series of vaccines. The main differential diagnosis includes mastitis and inflammatory breast cancer. The transient nature of this finding with spontaneous resolution at diagnostic mammography and the vaccination history helps to establish the diagnosis and exclude breast cancer.

The verification of the utility of a commercially available phantom combination for quality control in contrast-enhanced mammography.

Contrast-enhanced mammography is being increasingly implemented clinically, providing much improved contrast between tumour and background structures, particularly in dense breasts. Although CEM is similar to conventional mammography it differs via an additional exposure with high energy X-rays (≥ 40 kVp) and subsequent image subtraction. Because of its special operational aspects, the CEM aspect of a CEM unit needs to be uniquely characterised and evaluated. This study aims to verify the utility of a commercially available phantom set (BR3D model 020 and CESM model 022 phantoms (CIRS, Norfolk, Virginia, USA)) in performing key CEM performance tests (linearity of system response with iodine concentration and background subtraction) on two models of CEM units in a clinical setting. The tests were successfully performed, yielding results similar to previously published studies. Further, similarities and differences in the two systems from different vendors were highlighted, knowledge of which may potentially facilitate optimisation of the systems.

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.

Contrast-enhanced mammography for surveillance in women with a personal history of breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Women with a personal history of breast cancer have an increased risk of subsequent breast malignancy and may benefit from more sensitive surveillance than conventional mammography (MG). We previously reported outcomes for first surveillance episode using contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM), demonstrating higher sensitivity and comparable specificity to MG. We now report CEM performance for subsequent surveillance. METHODS: A retrospective study of 1,190 women in an Australian hospital setting undergoing annual surveillance following initial surveillance CEM between June 2016 and December 2022. Outcome measures were recall rate, cancer detection rate, contribution of contrast to recalls, false positive rate, interval cancer rate and characteristics of surveillance detected and interval cancers. RESULTS: 2,592 incident surveillance episodes were analysed, of which 93% involved contrast-based imaging. Of 116 (4.5%) recall episodes, 40/116 (34%) recalls were malignant (27 invasive; 13 ductal carcinoma in situ), totalling 15.4 cancers per 1000 surveillance episodes. 55/116 (47%) recalls were contrast-directed including 17/40 (43%) true positive recalls. Tumour features were similar for contrast-directed recalls and other diagnoses. 8/9 (89%) of contrast-directed invasive recalls were Grade 2-3, and 5/9 (56%) were triple negative breast cancers. There were two symptomatic interval cancers (0.8 per 1000 surveillance episodes, program sensitivity 96%). CONCLUSION: Routine use of CEM in surveillance of women with PHBC led to an increase in the detection of clinically significant malignant lesions, with a low interval cancer rate compared to previous published series. Compared to mammographic surveillance, contrast-enhanced mammography increases the sensitivity of surveillance programs for women with PHBC.

Knowledge, Age, and Perceived Social Barriers Regarding Mammography Screening Among Immigrant Arab Women in the United States: A Predictive and Associative Analysis.

Background: Ethnic minority women in the United States continue to experience racial disparities. Immigrant Arab women (IAW) underutilize mammography screening (MS) even compared with other ethnic minorities. This population still has gaps in knowledge regarding breast cancer (BC) and screening methods and encounters social barriers, highlighting the imperative role of the male figure and the family, which hinders screening. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional design with an exploratory and predictive approach was employed to examine knowledge gaps and perceived social barriers associated with MS and to identify predictive factors of MS among IAW in California. The analysis included 316 women that met the eligibility criteria. Results: Familiarity with MS and awareness of screening recommendations were the specific areas of knowledge significantly associated with mammography uptake (odds ratio [OR] 15.4, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.6-40.8, p < 0.001) and (OR 12.07, 95% CI: 7-21, p < 0.001), respectively. Logistic regression revealed three MS predictors, the two knowledge areas and age. Perceived social barriers were significantly associated with age [F (3,312) = 4.684, p = 0.003]. There was a significant difference in social barriers between women in their 40s and those in their 60s (p = 0.002) and between women in their 50s and those in their 60s (p = 0.003), suggesting lower barriers among women in their 60s (M = 14.3). Living status was significantly associated with perceived social barriers [F (1,314) = 8.83, p = 0.003]. Conclusions: This study offered valuable insights for health care professionals, policymakers, and community organizations working to improve BC early detection in immigrant and ethnic women to reduce social disparities and reinforce social justice. Knowledge-deficit areas and social barriers must be analyzed and incorporated in awareness programs to improve screening practices of IAW.

The ACR Mammography Positioning Improvement Collaborative: A Multi-Center Improvement Program within a Learning Network Framework.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE: To share the experience and results of the first cohort of the ACR Mammography Positioning Improvement Collaborative, in which participating sites aimed to increase the mean percentage of screening mammograms meeting the established positioning criteria to 85% or greater and show at least modest evidence of improvement at each site by the end of the improvement program. METHODS: The sites comprising the first cohort of the Collaborative were selected on the basis of strength of local leadership support, intra-organizational relationships, access to data and analytic support, and experience with quality improvement (QI) initiatives. During the improvement program, participating sites organized their teams, developed goals, gathered data, evaluated their current state, identified key drivers and root causes of their problems, and developed and tested interventions. A standardized image quality scoring system was also established. The impact of the interventions implemented at each site was assessed by tracking the percentage of screening mammograms meeting overall passing criteria over time. RESULTS: Six organizations were selected to participate as the first cohort, beginning with participation in the improvement program. Interventions developed and implemented at each site during the program resulted in improvement in the average percentage of screening mammograms meeting overall passing criteria per week from a collaborative mean of 51% to 86%, with four of six sites meeting or exceeding the target mean performance of 85% by the end of the improvement program. Afterwards, all respondents to the post-program survey indicated that the program was a positive experience. CONCLUSION: Using a structured improvement program within a learning network framework, the first cohort of the Collaborative demonstrated that improvement in mammography positioning performance can be achieved at multiple sites simultaneously, and validated the hypothesis that local sites' shared experiences, insights, and learnings would not only improve performance but would also build a community of improvers collaborating to create the best experience for technologists, staff, and patients.

Bridging Gaps: Analyzing Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) 0 Rates and Associated Risk Factors in Disproportionally Affected Communities.

Introduction Disparities in access to breast cancer screening led to the creation of the Linda Fenner 3D Mobile Mammography Center (LFMMC), successfully increasing screening for uninsured women in Miami-Dade. However, a higher-than-expected rate of inconclusive mammograms (Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) 0) was found, which could lead to unnecessary procedures, stress, costs, and radiation. Methods In this retrospective cross-sectional study, we analyzed data from 3,044 uninsured women aged over 40 (younger if positive family history of breast cancer) from Miami-Dade without breast symptoms or breast cancer history. Women's demographic characteristics, primary language spoken, body mass index (BMI), use of hormone replacement therapy and birth control, history of benign biopsy, breast surgery, family breast cancer, and menopausal status were assessed as potential risk factors for an inconclusive (BI-RADS 0) screening mammogram result. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to evaluate associations. Results The average age of women was 51 years (SD = 9); 59% were White, and 30% were African American. The overall frequency of BI-RADS 0 was 35%. Higher odds of BI-RADS 0 were found for women who were younger, single, premenopausal, and with benign biopsy history. Conversely, obesity and breast implant history decreased the odds of BI-RADS 0. Conclusion We found a high frequency of BI-RADS 0 in the LFMMC sample. Potential reasons include a higher risk for breast cancer or a younger sample of women screened. Future research should explore radiologists' reasoning for assigning BI-RADS 0 results and testing alternative screening strategies for younger women.

Impact of the measurement conditions and compression paddle on mammography dosimeter response.

The effect of mammography measurement conditions was investigated to evaluate their impact on measurement uncertainties in clinical practice. The most prominent physical X-ray beam quantities i.e., - air kerma, half-value layer, and X-ray tube voltage - were examined by measuring the response of two ionization chambers and six X-ray multimeters (XMMs) of different models. Measurements were performed using several anode/filter combinations and both with and without the compression paddle in the X-ray beam. Maximum differences of higher than 6 % were found for all quantities when the dosimeter displayed value was compared with the reference value or the variation within the clinical anode/filter combinations Mo/Mo and Mo/Rh were considered. The study showed that the calibration procedure with the W/Al anode/filter combination was reliable only for ionization chambers, and the response of XMMs varies in such a way that the calibration coefficient cannot be predicted between various measurement conditions used in calibration and clinical practices. XMM calibrations are typically performed without a compression paddle in the beam, and the response of the XMM changes when radiation quality is slightly altered. If XMM specific data is not available, based on this study, an additional uncertainty of 2 % (k = 1) could be used as a typical estimate, at least for air kerma measurements. XMMs should be used for clinical measurements in mammography only with correct settings. If the correct settings are not available, the XMMs should not be used or used only with extreme caution.

A Systematic Review to Evaluate the Barriers to Breast Cancer Screening in Women with Disability.

Background: Breast cancer (BC) is one of the leading causes of mortality worldwide. There are observed disparities in patients with disability as compared to those without disability, which leads to poor BC screening attendance, thereby worsening disease management. Aim: The aim of this systematic review is to investigate if there are disparities in screening rates in women with disability as compared to those without disability, as well as the different factors that pose barriers to patients with disability for enrolment in BC screening programs. Method: Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we systematically reviewed published articles between 2008 and 2023, which assessed different factors that contributed to poor attendance in BC screening programs held across different countries. Detailed study characteristics were obtained, and methodological quality assessment was performed on the individual studies included in this review. Result: A total of fifty-three articles were identified as eligible studies based on the pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. These included 7,252,913 patients diagnosed with BC (913,902 patients with disability/6,339,011 patients without disability). The results revealed there are demographic, clinical, financial, and service-related barriers that contributed to lower screening rates in disabled patients as compared to non-disabled. Patient age is the most common factor, with the highest effect observed for 80 years (vs. 30-44 years) [odds ratio (OR) = 13.93 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 8.27-23.47), p < 0.0001], followed by race/ethnicity for Hispanic (vs. non-Hispanic white) [OR = 9.5 (95%CI = 1.0-91.9), p < 0.05]. Additionally, patients with multiple disabilities had the highest rate of dropouts [OR = 27.4 (95%CI = 21.5-33.3)]. Other factors like education, income, marital status, and insurance coverage were essential barriers in screening programs. Conclusions: This study presents a holistic view of all barriers to poor BC screening attendance in disabled patients, thereby exacerbating health inequalities. A standardized approach to overcome the identified barriers and the need for a tailored guideline, especially for disability groups, is inevitable.

Digital Mammography (DM) vs. Dynamic Contrast Enhancement-Magnetic Resonance Imaging (DCE-MRI) in Microcalcifications Assessment: A Radiological-Pathological Comparison.

The aim of this study was to compare the characteristics of breast microcalcification on digital mammography (DM) with the histological and molecular subtypes of breast cancer and to identify the predictive value of DM and dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) in assessing microcalcifications for radiologic-pathologic correlation. We relied on our prospectively maintained database of suspicious microcalcifications on DM, from which data were retrospectively collected between January 2020 and April 2023. We enrolled 158 patients, all of whom were subjected to biopsy. Additionally, 63 patients underwent breast DCE-MRI. Microcalcifications with a linear branched morphology were correlated with malignancies (p < 0.001), among which an association was highlighted between triple negatives (TNs) and segmental distribution (p < 0.001). Amorphous calcifications were correlated with atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) (p = 0.013), coarse heterogeneous (p < 0.001), and fine-pleomorphic (p = 0.008) with atypical lobular hyperplasia (ALH) and fine pleomorphic (p = 0.009) with flat epithelial atypia (FEA). Regarding DCE-MRI, no statistical significance was observed between non-mass lesions and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Concerning mass lesions, three were identified as DCIS and five as invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC). In conclusion, microcalcifications assessed in DM exhibit promising predictive characteristics concerning breast lesion subtypes, leading to a reduction in diagnostic times and further examination costs, thereby enhancing the clinical management of patients.

Enhancing Accuracy in Breast Density Assessment Using Deep Learning: A Multicentric, Multi-Reader Study.

The evaluation of mammographic breast density, a critical indicator of breast cancer risk, is traditionally performed by radiologists via visual inspection of mammography images, utilizing the Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) breast density categories. However, this method is subject to substantial interobserver variability, leading to inconsistencies and potential inaccuracies in density assessment and subsequent risk estimations. To address this, we present a deep learning-based automatic detection algorithm (DLAD) designed for the automated evaluation of breast density. Our multicentric, multi-reader study leverages a diverse dataset of 122 full-field digital mammography studies (488 images in CC and MLO projections) sourced from three institutions. We invited two experienced radiologists to conduct a retrospective analysis, establishing a ground truth for 72 mammography studies (BI-RADS class A: 18, BI-RADS class B: 43, BI-RADS class C: 7, BI-RADS class D: 4). The efficacy of the DLAD was then compared to the performance of five independent radiologists with varying levels of experience. The DLAD showed robust performance, achieving an accuracy of 0.819 (95% CI: 0.736-0.903), along with an F1 score of 0.798 (0.594-0.905), precision of 0.806 (0.596-0.896), recall of 0.830 (0.650-0.946), and a Cohen's Kappa (κ) of 0.708 (0.562-0.841). The algorithm achieved robust performance that matches and in four cases exceeds that of individual radiologists. The statistical analysis did not reveal a significant difference in accuracy between DLAD and the radiologists, underscoring the model's competitive diagnostic alignment with professional radiologist assessments. These results demonstrate that the deep learning-based automatic detection algorithm can enhance the accuracy and consistency of breast density assessments, offering a reliable tool for improving breast cancer screening outcomes.

Sociodemographic Factors Associated with Breast Cancer Screening among Women in Serbia, National Health Survey.

Background: Approximately 2.3 million female breast cancer cases were identified globally in 2020, resulting in 685,000 fatalities among women. Serbia too experiences a high breast cancer burden. Effective reduction of breast cancer incidence and mortality necessitates strategic measures encompassing the implementation of cost-effective screening technology. However, various impediments to screening implementation persist. We aimed to estimate the impact of socioeconomic factors on breast cancer screening in Serbia. Methods: Data from the 2019 National Health Survey of the population of Serbia was. The research was a descriptive, cross-sectional analytical study by design, on a representative sample of the population of Serbia. Data from women aged 15+ yr were used to examine the demographic and socioeconomic factors associated with breast cancer screening inequalities. Results: In Serbia the age group of women who predominantly participated in organized breast cancer screening (39.5%) were the ones aged 65+ yr. Women with a secondary education were 2.1x more likely to undergo a screening exam voluntarily (57.5%), compared to women with a higher education background (26.6%). When considering marital and financial circumstances, married/unmarried women from an affluent financial category exhibited a notably higher frequency of self-initiating a mammography (73% and 48.5%) in comparison to those financially struggling (27.6%). Conclusion: Strong support is imperative for countries to establish prevention and early detection programs for cancer.

Understanding Breast Cancer Awareness, Perceptions, and Screening Practices Among the Population of Jazan, Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND:  Breast cancer represents a significant global health challenge, with Saudi Arabia experiencing high incidence rates, particularly among females. Early detection through screening methods such as mammography and breast self-examination offers promise in reducing mortality rates. However, participation in screening remains suboptimal, posing a barrier to effective cancer control. In regions like Jazan, situated in southwestern Saudi Arabia, comprehensive studies on breast cancer awareness and screening practices are lacking. METHODS: This cross-sectional study conducted in Jazan, Saudi Arabia, aimed to comprehensively assess breast cancer awareness, perceptions, and screening practices among the local population. An online survey platform was utilized to reach individuals aged 18 years or older residing in Jazan. Recruitment efforts utilized social media platforms, community networks, and local organizations to ensure diverse representation across socioeconomic backgrounds, education levels, and geographical locations. A meticulously designed questionnaire captured demographic information, breast cancer awareness, knowledge, health-seeking behaviors, screening practices, and barriers to mammogram screening. Participants provided electronic informed consent before self-administering the questionnaire. RESULTS:  The study conducted in Jazan, Saudi Arabia, encompassed 533 participants, predominantly young to middle-aged individuals. Most participants were Saudi nationals (97.6%), employed in the government sector (55.7%), and resided in urban areas (61.0%). Awareness of breast cancer was high, with 98.1% having heard of the disease. However, perceptions of age of onset and prevalence varied. While participants showed varied awareness of breast cancer warning signs and risk factors, family history was a commonly agreed-upon risk factor (54.4%). Health-seeking behavior for breast cancer symptoms varied, with nipple changes prompting the most immediate medical attention (36.4%). Although most participants were aware of self-breast examination (84.6%) and mammograms (56.7%), utilization rates were suboptimal, with barriers including fear (79.7%) and embarrassment (71.5%) hindering mammogram screening uptake. CONCLUSION:  This study provides insights into breast cancer awareness and screening practices among participants in Saudi Arabia. While awareness of breast self-examination and mammography is high, disparities in screening service access persist due to barriers like fear and embarrassment. Addressing these barriers through culturally sensitive interventions and collaborative efforts is crucial for enhancing screening uptake and promoting health equity.

Mammography of suspicious calcifications among ductal carcinoma in situ and benign breast disease.

Background: Most ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) lesions manifest early as calcifications, which could be benign or malignant. The classified group of suspicious calcifications among DCIS and benign breast disease is clinically important to early evaluate patient risk factors and plan treatment options. Objectives: To compare imaging features of suspicious calcifications between DCIS and benign breast disease. Method: A retrospective study of 101 suspicious calcifications was performed at Thammasat University Hospital from June 2011 to October 2020. The calcifications were surgically excised by mammography-guided wire localisation. The mammographic features of the suspicious calcifications were reviewed according to the fifth edition of the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System lexicon. For comparing between two groups, the student t-test, Fisher's exact test and Mann-Whitney U test were used for statistical analyses. The logistic regression analysis was calculated for DCIS prediction. Results: The pathologic results of all 101 suspicious calcifications were DCIS (30 cases) and benign breast disease (71 cases). Linear morphology and segmental distribution correlated significantly with DCIS (p = 0.003 and p = 0.024, respectively). After multivariable analysis, fine linear calcification still significantly elevated the risk of DCIS (odd ratios, 51.72 [95% confidence interval: 2.61, 1022.89], p-value of 0.01), however, the odds of predicting DCIS was not statistically significant different among any distribution. Conclusion: Ductal carcinoma in situ calcification has contrasting morphology and distribution features compared to benign breast disease. The calcification descriptor is considered an important implement for early diagnosis and distinguishes DCIS from other benign breast conditions. Contribution: Calcification descriptor is considered an important implement for early diagnosis and distinguishment of DCIS from other benign breast conditions.

Reproducibility and Explainability of Deep Learning in Mammography: A Systematic Review of Literature.

Background Although abundant literature is currently available on the use of deep learning for breast cancer detection in mammography, the quality of such literature is widely variable. Purpose To evaluate published literature on breast cancer detection in mammography for reproducibility and to ascertain best practices for model design. Methods The PubMed and Scopus databases were searched to identify records that described the use of deep learning to detect lesions or classify images into cancer or noncancer. A modification of Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (mQUADAS-2) tool was developed for this review and was applied to the included studies. Results of reported studies (area under curve [AUC] of receiver operator curve [ROC] curve, sensitivity, specificity) were recorded. Results A total of 12,123 records were screened, of which 107 fit the inclusion criteria. Training and test datasets, key idea behind model architecture, and results were recorded for these studies. Based on mQUADAS-2 assessment, 103 studies had high risk of bias due to nonrepresentative patient selection. Four studies were of adequate quality, of which three trained their own model, and one used a commercial network. Ensemble models were used in two of these. Common strategies used for model training included patch classifiers, image classification networks (ResNet in 67%), and object detection networks (RetinaNet in 67%). The highest reported AUC was 0.927 ± 0.008 on a screening dataset, while it reached 0.945 (0.919-0.968) on an enriched subset. Higher values of AUC (0.955) and specificity (98.5%) were reached when combined radiologist and Artificial Intelligence readings were used than either of them alone. None of the studies provided explainability beyond localization accuracy. None of the studies have studied interaction between AI and radiologist in a real world setting. Conclusion While deep learning holds much promise in mammography interpretation, evaluation in a reproducible clinical setting and explainable networks are the need of the hour.

Factors influencing U.S. women's interest and preferences for breast cancer risk communication: a cross-sectional study from a large tertiary care breast imaging center.

BACKGROUND: Breast imaging clinics in the United States (U.S.) are increasingly implementing breast cancer risk assessment (BCRA) to align with evolving guideline recommendations but with limited uptake of risk-reduction care. Effectively communicating risk information to women is central to implementation efforts, but remains understudied in the U.S. This study aims to characterize, and identify factors associated with women's interest in and preferences for breast cancer risk communication. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional survey study of U.S. women presenting for a mammogram between January and March of 2021 at a large, tertiary breast imaging clinic. Survey items assessed women's interest in knowing their risk and preferences for risk communication if considered to be at high risk in hypothetical situations. Multivariable logistic regression modeling assessed factors associated with women's interest in knowing their personal risk and preferences for details around exact risk estimates. RESULTS: Among 1119 women, 72.7% were interested in knowing their breast cancer risk. If at high risk, 77% preferred to receive their exact risk estimate and preferred verbal (52.9% phone/47% in-person) vs. written (26.5% online/19.5% letter) communications. Adjusted regression analyses found that those with a primary family history of breast cancer were significantly more interested in knowing their risk (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.0, 2.1, p = 0.04), while those categorized as "more than one race or other" were significantly less interested in knowing their risk (OR 0.4, 95% CI 0.2, 0.9, p = 0.02). Women 60 + years of age were significantly less likely to prefer exact estimates of their risk (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.5, 0.98, p < 0.01), while women with greater than a high school education were significantly more likely to prefer exact risk estimates (OR 2.5, 95% CI 1.5, 4.2, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: U.S. women in this study expressed strong interest in knowing their risk and preferred to receive exact risk estimates verbally if found to be at high risk. Sociodemographic and family history influenced women's interest and preferences for risk communication. Breast imaging centers implementing risk assessment should consider strategies tailored to women's preferences to increase interest in risk estimates and improve risk communication.

The FDA Enhancing Quality Using the Inspection Program (EQUIP) Breast Imaging Quality Initiative. 5-Year Clinical Experience.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of the Enhancing Quality Using the Inspection Program (EQUIP) on quality control (QC) and quality assurance (QA) at an academic medical center. METHODS: EQUIP audit logs for technologist image quality review as well as mammography unit QA and QC formed the basis for study data. One randomly selected screening mammogram was evaluated by the lead interpreting physician (LIP) using EQUIP criteria for each technologist for each imaging site worked, initially semiannually and then monthly. One randomly selected screening mammogram interpreted by each interpreting physician (IP) for each imaging site was evaluated on a semiannual basis. Quarterly, the LIP reviewed QA and QC logs for each mammography unit with deficiencies further investigated. RESULTS: Of 214 965 eligible screening mammograms performed, 5955 (2.8%) underwent EQUIP image quality review. Five were found to be technically inadequate (0.08%, 5955/214 965). The LIP identified 20 significant interpretive differences compared with the clinical interpretation resulting in 10 biopsies and 7 previously undetected malignancies, with supplemental cancer detection rate of 1.2/1000 cases reviewed. Two hundred ninety mammography unit QA/QC reviews identified 31 potential deficiencies, 29 of which were due to human documentation error (93.4%). CONCLUSION: EQUIP review of both IP and technologists' quality and mammography unit QA/QC logs as performed identified few deficiencies. EQUIP policies should be evaluated at each institution and modified to best utilize resources and provide opportunities for meaningful quality improvement. Although not an EQUIP focus, supplemental cancer detection was observed as might be expected with double reading.