USPSTF recommends biennial mammography for breast cancer screening in women aged 40 to 74 y

Kala Visvanathan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7326/ANNALS-24-02229-JC

Abstract:US Preventive Services Task Force; Nicholson WK, Silverstein M, Wong JB, et al. Screening for breast cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA. 2024;331:1918-1930. 38687503.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

US expert panel says breast cancer screening should begin at 40

Janice Hopkins Tanne

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.q1020

2024-05-04

BMJ

Abstract:Women in the US should begin breast cancer screening with mammography at age 40 and be screened every other year until the age of 74, the US Preventive Services Task Force has recommended.1 US doctors typically follow the task force's recommendations.The task force said that more research was needed about whether additional screening might be helpful for women with dense breasts—about half of all women—and whether to look at the benefits and possible harms of screening women aged 75 and older.The report's recommendations apply to women at average risk of breast cancer as well as those with a family history of breast cancer and those with dense breasts. They do not apply to women with a personal history of breast cancer, those at high risk owing to genetic factors, those with a history of high dose radiation to their chest when young, and those who have had a high risk...

medicine, general & internal
New Recommendations for Breast Cancer Screening—In Pursuit of Health Equity

Lydia E. Pace,Nancy L. Keating

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.11638

2024-05-01

JAMA Network Open

Abstract:The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) last released recommendations on breast cancer screening in 2016, when they recommended that most women be screened every 2 years starting at age 50 years. In their 2024 recommendations, 1 -3 the USPSTF now recommends initiating screening mammography for all women at age 40 years and screening every 2 years until age 74 years (B recommendation). Similar to the 2016 recommendations, in their updated recommendations, 1 -3 the USPSTF concludes that evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening mammography in women aged 75 years and older (I statement) and that evidence is insufficient to assess the role of supplemental screening for women with dense breasts (I statement). Beyond the change in the recommended age to initiate screening, the new recommendations differ from prior recommendations in 2 critical and related ways: a deliberate focus on health equity and greater reliance on evidence from studies other than randomized clinical trials (RCTs). The 2024 USPSTF recommendations 1 -3 adopt a deliberate focus on health equity, aligning with the USPSTF's effort to incorporate heath equity, race, and antiracism into their recommendations. 4 The 2024 recommendations 1 -3 explicitly strive to address the persistent inequity in breast cancer mortality experienced by Black women in the US, who—despite having lower lifetime breast cancer incidence—are 40% more likely to die of the disease. 5 The reasons for this disparity are thought to be multifactorial and complex but rooted in systemic racism. Black women are more likely than White women to have mammograms of lower quality (despite comparable screening rates), experience longer delays to definitive diagnosis and treatment, and receive less guideline-concordant care. 6 Black women have higher breast cancer incidence in their 30s and 40s than White women and are more likely to have aggressive tumor subtypes, such as triple-negative cancers, perhaps related to the effects of environmental exposures and systemic racism. 5 Whether and how inequitable breast cancer outcomes should inform breast cancer screening practices is uncertain. Notably, RCTs of mammography screening, and even large observational studies, have included few women of color and thus do not shed light on racial and ethnic differences in the benefits and harms of screening. To inform its current recommendations, 1 -3 the USPSTF commissioned a new modeling study assessing the benefits and harms of mammography screening in the average-risk population of US women overall and for Black women specifically. Model inputs included real-world data on treatment, including inferior treatment received by Black women, and higher breast cancer mortality rates among Black women. Across all women, the models estimated that screening every 2 years between ages 50 and 74 years would avert an estimated 6.7 breast cancer deaths per 1000 people screened, while biennial screening starting at age 40 years would avert an additional 1.3 breast cancer deaths. Among Black women, screening every 2 years between ages 50 and 74 would avert an estimated 9.2 breast cancer deaths per 1000 persons screened, while biennial screening starting at age 40 years would avert an additional 1.8 breast cancer deaths. However, screening every 2 years starting at age 40 years also would lead to more false positive tests (1376 false positives per 1000 screened in the general population, and 1253 false positives per 1000 screened in Black women, over a lifetime) and overdiagnosed cancers (ie, cancers that would never become clinically evident in a woman's lifetime in the absence of screening; 14 cancers per 1000 women screened in the general population, and 18 cancers per 1000 women screened among Black women). 1 ,3 Overall, the models suggest that compared with the general population, Black women would derive more benefit from screening, including from starting screening in their 40s, although the additional benefit of screening starting at age 40 years vs age 50 years was small in both groups. Modeling studies can shed light on questions for which RCT data are not available, and the use of modelling to examine the effects of systemic racism and inform strategies to mitigate these effects is intriguing. 7 However, modeling studies also have important limitations, including their reliance on inputs and assumptions that may or may not be transparent or universally agreed on. For example, the USPSTF model identified a breast cancer mortality reduction from mammography of 30% for screening women aged 40 to 74 years, which is substantially higher than reductions from mammography observed in RCTs (8% for women in their 40s and 14% for women in their 50s).<s -Abstract Truncated-

medicine, general & internal
Screening for Colorectal Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

Katrina E. Donahue,A. Krist,Chien-Wen Tseng,J. Wong,Martha Y. Kubik,M. Barry,A. Caughey,Li Li,C. Mangione,K. Davidson,D. Owens,Chyke A Doubeni,G. Ogedegbe,E. Davis,L. Pbert,Michael Silverstein,M. Cabana,J. Stevermer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2021.6238

2021-05-18

Abstract:Importance Colorectal cancer is the third leading cause of cancer death for both men and women, with an estimated 52 980 persons in the US projected to die of colorectal cancer in 2021. Colorectal cancer is most frequently diagnosed among persons aged 65 to 74 years. It is estimated that 10.5% of new colorectal cancer cases occur in persons younger than 50 years. Incidence of colorectal cancer (specifically adenocarcinoma) in adults aged 40 to 49 years has increased by almost 15% from 2000-2002 to 2014-2016. In 2016, 26% of eligible adults in the US had never been screened for colorectal cancer and in 2018, 31% were not up to date with screening. Objective To update its 2016 recommendation, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review to evaluate the benefits and harms of screening for colorectal cancer in adults 40 years or older. The review also examined whether these findings varied by age, sex, or race/ethnicity. In addition, as in 2016, the USPSTF commissioned a report from the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network Colorectal Cancer Working Group to provide information from comparative modeling on how estimated life-years gained, colorectal cancer cases averted, and colorectal cancer deaths averted vary by different starting and stopping ages for various screening strategies. Population Asymptomatic adults 45 years or older at average risk of colorectal cancer (ie, no prior diagnosis of colorectal cancer, adenomatous polyps, or inflammatory bowel disease; no personal diagnosis or family history of known genetic disorders that predispose them to a high lifetime risk of colorectal cancer [such as Lynch syndrome or familial adenomatous polyposis]). Evidence Assessment The USPSTF concludes with high certainty that screening for colorectal cancer in adults aged 50 to 75 years has substantial net benefit. The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that screening for colorectal cancer in adults aged 45 to 49 years has moderate net benefit. The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that screening for colorectal cancer in adults aged 76 to 85 years who have been previously screened has small net benefit. Adults who have never been screened for colorectal cancer are more likely to benefit. Recommendation The USPSTF recommends screening for colorectal cancer in all adults aged 50 to 75 years. (A recommendation) The USPSTF recommends screening for colorectal cancer in adults aged 45 to 49 years. (B recommendation) The USPSTF recommends that clinicians selectively offer screening for colorectal cancer in adults aged 76 to 85 years. Evidence indicates that the net benefit of screening all persons in this age group is small. In determining whether this service is appropriate in individual cases, patients and clinicians should consider the patient's overall health, prior screening history, and preferences. (C recommendation).

Medicine
NIH Consensus Statement on Breast Cancer Screening for Women in Their 40s: How Will It Affect Patient Care?

FL Huey

Abstract:It is generally accepted that breast cancer screening mammograms in women 50 years of age and older has saved lives. It also is generally accepted that the incidence of breast cancer in women younger than 40 is too small to warrant subjecting young women to the risks associated with mammograms. But whether women in the transition years from 40 to 49 should have routine screening mammograms has been debated for 2 decades. On January 23, the NIH Consensus Statement on Screening Mammograms for Women Ages 40 to 49 lit a powder keg when, after 2-and-a-half days of hearings and study, it announced "The data do not support a universal recommendation that all women in their 40s should undergo screening mammography." Many experts have challenged the conclusion and advocated screening mammograms every 1 to 2 years starting at age 40. To sort out the impact of the NIH statement and determine where clinicians and consumers stand, Medscape launched its first on-line survey on January 30. Most Medscape responders agree that screening mammograms every 1 to 2 years should begin at age 40 and fear that third-party health care payers will use the conclusion of the NIH consensus panel to deny reimbursement for screening mammograms in women younger than 50 years of age.
Updates in Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis

Georgia Spear,Kyla Lee,Allison DePersia,Thomas Lienhoop,Poornima Saha

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11864-024-01271-8

2024-10-30

Current Treatment Options in Oncology

Abstract:Breast cancer does not wait until a woman reaches her 50's to strike. One in six cases occurs in women between the ages of 40 and 49 and breast cancer is the most prevalent cancer and the leading cause of cancer-related deaths among women under 50 in the United States (10% of breast cancer deaths), emphasizing the urgency of early detection (American Society. 2024). Duffy et al. highlight the vital role of mammography screening in younger women, showing that starting screening at 40 reduces breast cancer mortality, with a consistent absolute reduction over time (Duffy et al. Health Technol Assess. 24(55):1–24, 2020). By starting yearly mammograms at 40, we could see a remarkable 40% reduction in breast cancer deaths (Monticciolo et al. J Am Coll Radiol. 18(9):1280–8, 2021). Screening at age 40 also adds little to the burden of overdiagnosis that already arises from screening at age 50 and older. Comparing this to biennial screening between ages 50–74, yearly screening at 40 saves approximately 13,770 more lives annually according to a report by the American Cancer Society published in JAMA in 2015 (Oeffinger et al. JAMA. 314(15):1599–614, 2015). But it's not just about saving lives; it's also about preserving quality of life. Between ages 40 and 49, 12–15% of years of life lost are attributed to breast cancer, highlighting the impact on women's lives. Early detection through screening can minimize these losses, ensuring more years spent with loved ones. It's clear: starting mammograms at age 40 saves lives. We must prioritize early detection and make screening accessible to all women, regardless of age. This proactive approach can reduce the burden of breast cancer and pave the way for a healthier future for women everywhere.

oncology
On Breast Cancer Screening in Older Women

Otis W. Brawley

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7326/M21-4235

IF: 39.2

2021-12-01

Annals of Internal Medicine

Abstract:Breast cancer control efforts have led to a 40% reduction in U.S. age-adjusted mortality since 1988 (1). Even with substantial progress, there are substantial controversies in breast cancer control. Is tomosynthesis mammography (3-dimensional) superior to standard digital mammography (2-dimensional)? At what age should screening begin? How often should women undergo screening? At what age should screening stop?

medicine, general & internal
Screening for Breast Cancer: A Comparative Review of Guidelines

Katsika,Boureka,Kalogiannidis,Tsakiridis,Tirodimos,Lallas,Tsimtsiou,Dagklis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/life14060777

2024-06-20

Life

Abstract:Breast cancer is the most common malignancy diagnosed in the female population worldwide and the leading cause of death among perimenopausal women. Screening is essential, since earlier detection in combination with improvements in breast cancer treatment can reduce the associated mortality. The aim of this study was to review and compare the recommendations from published guidelines on breast cancer screening. A total of 14 guidelines on breast cancer screening issued between 2014 and 2022 were identified. A descriptive review of relevant guidelines by the World Health Organization (WHO), the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), the American Cancer Society (ACS), the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), the American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS), the American College of Radiology (ACR), the Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC), the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (ECIBC), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP) and the Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology (JJCO) for women both at average and high-risk was carried out. There is a consensus among all the reviewed guidelines that mammography is the gold standard screening modality for average-risk women. For this risk group, most of the guidelines suggest annual or biennial mammographic screening at 40–74 years, while screening should particularly focus at 50–69 years. Most of the guidelines suggest that the age limit to stop screening should be determined based on the women's health status and life expectancy. For women at high-risk, most guidelines recommend the use of annual mammography or magnetic resonance imaging, while the starting age should be earlier than the average-risk group, depending on the risk factor. There is discrepancy among the recommendations regarding the age at onset of screening in the various high-risk categories. The development of consistent international practice protocols for the most appropriate breast cancer screening programs seems of major importance to reduce mortality rates and safely guide everyday clinical practice.

biology
New Approaches and Recommendations for Risk‐Adapted Breast Cancer Screening

Marialena I. Tsarouchi,Alma Hoxhaj,Ritse M. Mann

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.28731

IF: 4.4

2023-04-13

Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Abstract:Population‐based breast cancer screening using mammography as the gold standard imaging modality has been in clinical practice for over 40 years. However, the limitations of mammography in terms of sensitivity and high false‐positive rates, particularly in high‐risk women, challenge the indiscriminate nature of population‐based screening. Additionally, in light of expanding research on new breast cancer risk factors, there is a growing consensus that breast cancer screening should move toward a risk‐adapted approach. Recent advancements in breast imaging technology, including contrast material‐enhanced mammography (CEM), ultrasound (US) (automated‐breast US, Doppler, elastography US), and especially magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (abbreviated, ultrafast, and contrast‐agent free), may provide new opportunities for risk‐adapted personalized screening strategies. Moreover, the integration of artificial intelligence and radiomics techniques has the potential to enhance the performance of risk‐adapted screening. This review article summarizes the current evidence and challenges in breast cancer screening and highlights potential future perspectives for various imaging techniques in a risk‐adapted breast cancer screening approach. Evidence Level 1. Technical Efficacy Stage 5.

radiology, nuclear medicine & medical imaging
The Impact of Mammography Screening Guideline Changes Among Women Serving in the U.S. Military

Julie A Bytnar,Celia Byrne,Cara Olsen,Catherine T Witkop,Mary Beth Martin,Amanda Banaag,Tracey Koehlmoos

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/milmed/usaa176

2020-12-30

Abstract:Introduction: The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) modified their screening guidelines for breast cancer in November 2009. Previous studies evaluated the impact of these guideline changes among privately and Medicare insured populations. Women in the military form a unique population exposed to many social, environmental, and occupational hazards that may increase breast cancer incidence. By evaluating mammography screening rates among women in the military before and after the USPSTF guideline changes, this study evaluated the impact of the USPSTF breast cancer guideline change on screening mammography use within the military population and determined whether current guidelines were followed for this high-risk population with universal health care access. Materials and methods: This study evaluated the impact of the 2009 guideline changes among the population of universally insured military servicewomen, comparing the proportion of active duty women aged 40 to 64 receiving mammograms from fiscal years 2006 to 2015 using an interrupted time series analysis. Stratified analyses evaluated differences by age (aged 40-49, 50-64), race, military branch, and rank. This research is considered exempt by the Uniformed Services University Institutional Review Board. Results: The proportion of insured military servicewomen receiving mammograms increased from October 2005 through September 2009. A significant decrease occurred in the first quarter of 2010 following the publication of the screening guideline update. From this new baseline, the proportion of women screened increased again through September 2015. Comparative analyses showed more pronounced effects both immediately and over time among the women aged 50 to 64 compared to those aged 40 to 49 years and among older enlisted women compared with their officer counterparts. The patterns were near identical in all subgroups; however, no changes in rate were evident among Air Force and black servicewomen aged 50 to 64 and Army and Navy/Marine Corps servicewomen aged 40 to 49 years. No racial disparities in screening or impact were noted. Conclusions: The USPSTF guidelines had differential impacts among some subpopulations. While older women, aged 50 to 64 years, had a greater temporary reduction immediately after the guideline change, younger women aged 40 to 49 years had a longer-term reduction in screening following the guideline changes. No racial disparities in the proportion screened or in the impact of the guideline change were noted in this population with universal health coverage. The lack of Department of Defense standard breast cancer screening guidelines was evident from the different patterns of mammography utilization observed among military branches. To completely understand the impact of the updated screening guidelines, future studies must incorporate research focusing on changes in breast cancer morbidity and mortality as well as updated cost-benefit analyses.
Changes in Breast Cancer Screening Prevalence in the US During the COVID-19 Pandemic, 2018-2022

Kilan C. Ashad-Bishop,Jessica Star,Angela N. Giaquinto,Robert A. Smith,Ahmedin Jemal,Priti Bandi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.epi-24-0540

2024-10-16

Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention

Abstract:Background: Annual mammography screening declined year-on-year during the COVID-19 pandemic through 2021. This study examined changes in 2022 compared to 2018 in the national prevalence of self-reported up-to-date mammography. Methods: Using 2018-2022 data from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), we assess relative changes defined as annual prevalence ratios (aPR) in the SR receipt of past-year and up-to-date (UTD) breast cancer screening (bi-annual mammography in women ages 50-74 years) during the third year of the COVID-19 pandemic overall and by sociodemographic characteristics. Results: UTD BC screening declined for the first time since 2018 (2018 compared to 2022, from 78.7% to 76.6%; aPR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.96-0.98), despite a small increase in past-year breast cancer screening from 2020 and 2022 (57.9% to 59.6%; aPR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01-1.05). This translated to 747,791 fewer women reporting UTD with recommended BC screening in 2022 vs. 2018. UTD BC screening declines between 2018-2022 were largest for American Indian/Alaska Native women (74.8% to 62.2%; aPR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.74-0.93), women with less formal educational attainment (< high school: 73.1% to 65.5%; aPR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.85-0.95), and women without a usual source of care (48% to 42.9%; aPR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.78-0.92). Conclusions: Previously noted pandemic-related declines in past-year BC screening now reflect in women reporting being UTD, with the largest declines in AI/AN and lower SES women. Impact: Future studies should monitor screening prevalence in relation to BC diagnostic stage, overall and by sociodemographic groups.

oncology,public, environmental & occupational health
Abstract GS03-02: Mammographic surveillance in early breast cancer patients aged 50 years or over: results of the Mammo-50 non-inferiority trial of annual versus less frequent mammography

Janet Dunn,Peter Donnelly,Nada Elbeltagi,Andrea Marshall,Alastair Thompson,Riccardo Audisio,Sarah Pinder,David Cameron,Amy Campbell,Sue Hartup,Lesley Turner,Annie Young,Helen Higgins,Eila Watson,Sophie Gasson,Peter Barrett-Lee,Claire Hulme,Bethany Shinkins,Peter Hall,Andy Evans

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs23-gs03-02

IF: 11.2

2024-05-03

Cancer Research

Abstract:Introduction: Annual surveillance mammograms for an unspecified period, after treatment for early breast cancer, are widely practised in USA and Europe and represent a significant healthcare cost. Current UK guidelines recommend annual mammograms up to 5 years, then reverts to 3 year screening without specified risk stratification. Further evidence is needed to determine the optimum frequency and duration of mammographic surveillance. Methods: A multi-centre, randomised controlled, phase III trial of annual mammography versus 2-yearly for conservation surgery and 3-yearly mammograms for mastectomy patients up to 9 years. Women were eligible if aged 50 years or over at initial diagnosis of breast cancer (invasive or DCIS), and recurrence free 3 years post curative surgery. Primary outcome was breast cancer specific survival (BCSS). Secondary outcomes include recurrence free interval (RFI) and overall survival (OS). BCSS event was defined as deaths from breast cancer and RFI as any locoregional or distant invasive recurrence or new breast primary. 5000 women were needed to detect a 3% absolute non-inferiority (NI) margin for BCSS with 2.5% one-sided alpha and at least 85% power. Analyses were carried out on intention-to-treat basis. Results: 5235 women were randomised between April 2014 and September 2018. 4347 (83%) women were aged 55-75 years, 4203 (80%) had undergone conservation surgery, 4564 (87%) had invasive disease, 1162 (22%) had node positive disease, 4330 (83%) had ER positive tumours and 3812 (73%) were taking hormone therapy at the time of randomisation. Patient characteristics were balanced across arms. With a median of 5.4 years follow-up (interquartile range 4.6-5.9), 319 women have died; 104 of breast cancer (53 on annual arm; 51 on less frequent arm). BCSS at 5 years was 98.2% (95% CI 97.5-98.6%) on annual arm and 98.3% (95% CI 97.7-98.8%) on less frequent arm. Hazard ratio (HR) was 1.04 (95% CI 0.71 -1.54), demonstrating non-inferiority of less frequent mammograms at the 3% margin (NI p< 0.0001; critical value 2.71) and the 1% margin (NI p=0.02; critical value 1.56). 320 (6%) women had a new invasive breast cancer event (55 loco-regional recurrences, 85 new breast primaries, 139 distant recurrences and 41 with multiple invasive events); 164 on the annual arm compared to 156 on the less frequent arm. Five-year RFI was 94.2% (95% CI 93.2-95.1%) for the annual arm and 94.4% (95% CI 93.4-95.3%) for the less frequent arm; HR= 1.03; (95% CI 0.83-1.28) demonstrating non-inferiority at a 2% margin (NI p=0.006; critical value 1.36). OS at 5 years was 94.9% (95% CI 93.9-95.7%) on the annual arm and 94.3% (95% CI 93.3-95.2%) on the less frequent arm. Hazard ratio (HR) was 1.18 (95% CI 0.94 -1.47), demonstrating non-inferiority of less frequent mammograms at the 3% margin (NI p=0.003; critical value 1.61) and the 2.5% margin (NI p=0.02; critical value 1.51). A total of 14987 mammograms have been performed on the annual arm and 8047 on the less frequent arm. 1967 (75%) of 2618 women on the annual arm complied with their allocated schedule compared to 1775 (68%) of 2617 women on the less frequent arm. COVID-19 pandemic affected compliance; it is estimated that 345 (7%) women missed mammograms during the pandemic. A sensitivity analysis was performed on the 72% of women who fully complied with their scheduled mammograms as per protocol, and again NI was demonstrated for BCSS, RFI and OS. Conclusions: For patients aged 50 or older and 3 years post diagnosis, Mammo-50 demonstrated that less frequent mammograms were no worse than annual mammograms. These results provide evidence for less frequent mammographic surveillance for this patient population. Citation Format: Janet Dunn, Peter Donnelly, Nada Elbeltagi, Andrea Marshall, Alastair Thompson, Riccardo Audisio, Sarah Pinder, David Cameron, Amy Campbell, Sue Hartup, Lesley Turner, Annie Young, Helen Higgins, Eila Watson, Sophie Gasson, Peter Barrett-Lee, Claire Hulme, Bethany Shinkins, Peter Hall, Andy Evans. Mammographic surveillance in early breast cancer patients aged 50 years or over: results of the Mammo-50 non-inferiority trial of annual versus less frequent mammography [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2023 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2023 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(9 Suppl) nr GS03-02.

oncology
USPSTF Colorectal Cancer Screening Recommendation and Uptake for Individuals Aged 45 to 49 Years

Sunny Siddique,Rong Wang,Faiza Yasin,Jacquelyne J Gaddy,Lan Zhang,Cary P Gross,Xiaomei Ma

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.36358

2024-10-01

Abstract:Importance: In May 2021, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) issued a grade B recommendation encouraging colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among average-risk individuals aged 45 to 49 years. The patterns of screening uptake and possible socioeconomic disparities in screening in this age group remain unknown. Objective: To evaluate changes in CRC screening uptake among average-risk individuals aged 45 to 49 years after the USPSTF recommendation was issued in 2021. Design, setting, and participants: This retrospective cohort study used deidentified claims data from commercially insured Blue Cross Blue Shield beneficiaries aged 45 to 49 years across the US between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2022. Exposure: Publication of the May 2021 USPSTF CRC screening recommendation for adults aged 45 to 49 years. Main outcomes and measures: Absolute and relative changes in screening uptake were compared between a 20-month period preceding (May 1, 2018, to December 31, 2019) and a 20-month period following (May 1, 2021, to December, 31, 2022) the USPSTF recommendation. Interrupted time-series analysis and autoregressive integrated moving average models were used to evaluate changes in screening rates, adjusting for temporal autocorrelation and seasonality. Results: In this cohort study of 10 221 114 distinct beneficiaries aged 45 to 49 years (mean [SD] age, 47.04 [1.41] years; 51.04% female), bimonthly mean (SD) numbers of average-risk beneficiaries were 3 213 935 (31 508) and 2 923 327 (105 716) in the prerecommendation and postrecommendation periods, respectively. Mean (SD) screening uptake increased from 0.50% (0.02%) to 1.51% (0.59%) between the 2 periods (P < .001), representing an absolute change of 1.01 percentage points (95% CI, 0.62-1.40 percentage points) but no significant relative change (202.51%; 95% CI, -30.59% to 436.87%). Compared with average-risk beneficiaries residing in areas with the lowest socioeconomic status (SES), those residing in areas with the highest SES experienced the largest absolute change in screening (1.25 [95% CI, 0.77-1.74] percentage points vs 0.75 [95% CI, 0.47-1.02] percentage points), but relative changes were not significant (214.01% [95% CI, -30.91% to 461.15%] vs 167.73% [95% CI, -16.30% to 352.62%]). After the recommendation was issued, the screening uptake rate also increased fastest among average-risk beneficiaries residing in the areas with highest SES (0.24 [95% CI, 0.23-0.25] percentage points every 2 months) and metropolitan areas (0.20 [95% CI, 0.19-0.21] percentage points every 2 months). Conclusions and relevance: This study found that among privately insured beneficiaries aged 45 to 49 years, CRC screening uptake increased after the USPSTF recommendation, with potential disparities based on SES and locality.
ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Female Breast Cancer Screening: 2023 Update

Expert Panel on Breast Imaging,Bethany L Niell,Maxine S Jochelson,Tali Amir,Ann Brown,Megan Adamson,Paul Baron,Debbie L Bennett,Alison Chetlen,Sandra Dayaratna,Phoebe E Freer,Lillian K Ivansco,Katherine A Klein,Sharp F Malak,Tejas S Mehta,Linda Moy,Colleen H Neal,Mary S Newell,Ilana B Richman,Mara Schonberg,William Small Jr,Gary A Ulaner,Priscilla J Slanetz

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2024.02.019

Abstract:Early detection of breast cancer from regular screening substantially reduces breast cancer mortality and morbidity. Multiple different imaging modalities may be used to screen for breast cancer. Screening recommendations differ based on an individual's risk of developing breast cancer. Numerous factors contribute to breast cancer risk, which is frequently divided into three major categories: average, intermediate, and high risk. For patients assigned female at birth with native breast tissue, mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis are the recommended method for breast cancer screening in all risk categories. In addition to the recommendation of mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis in high-risk patients, screening with breast MRI is recommended. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision process support the systematic analysis of the medical literature from peer reviewed journals. Established methodology principles such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE are adapted to evaluate the evidence. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User Manual provides the methodology to determine the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where peer reviewed literature is lacking or equivocal, experts may be the primary evidentiary source available to formulate a recommendation.
Performance of Supplemental US Screening in Women with Dense Breasts and Varying Breast Cancer Risk: Results from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium

Brian L Sprague,Laura Ichikawa,Joanna Eavey,Kathryn P Lowry,Garth H Rauscher,Ellen S O'Meara,Diana L Miglioretti,Janie M Lee,Natasha K Stout,Sally D Herschorn,Hannah Perry,Donald L Weaver,Karla Kerlikowske

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.232380

IF: 19.7

Radiology

Abstract:Background It is unclear whether breast US screening outcomes for women with dense breasts vary with levels of breast cancer risk. Purpose To evaluate US screening outcomes for female patients with dense breasts and different estimated breast cancer risk levels. Materials and Methods This retrospective observational study used data from US screening examinations in female patients with heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts conducted from January 2014 to October 2020 at 24 radiology facilities within three Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) registries. The primary outcomes were the cancer detection rate, false-positive biopsy recommendation rate, and positive predictive value of biopsies performed (PPV3). Risk classification of participants was performed using established BCSC risk prediction models of estimated 6-year advanced breast cancer risk and 5-year invasive breast cancer risk. Differences in high- versus low- or average-risk categories were assessed using a generalized linear model. Results In total, 34 791 US screening examinations from 26 489 female patients (mean age at screening, 53.9 years ± 9.0 [SD]) were included. The overall cancer detection rate per 1000 examinations was 2.0 (95% CI: 1.6, 2.4) and was higher in patients with high versus low or average risk of 6-year advanced breast cancer (5.5 [95% CI: 3.5, 8.6] vs 1.3 [95% CI: 1.0, 1.8], respectively; P = .003). The overall false-positive biopsy recommendation rate per 1000 examinations was 29.6 (95% CI: 22.6, 38.6) and was higher in patients with high versus low or average 6-year advanced breast cancer risk (37.0 [95% CI: 28.2, 48.4] vs 28.1 [95% CI: 20.9, 37.8], respectively; P = .04). The overall PPV3 was 6.9% (67 of 975; 95% CI: 5.3, 8.9) and was higher in patients with high versus low or average 6-year advanced cancer risk (15.0% [15 of 100; 95% CI: 9.9, 22.2] vs 4.9% [30 of 615; 95% CI: 3.3, 7.2]; P = .01). Similar patterns in outcomes were observed by 5-year invasive breast cancer risk. Conclusion The cancer detection rate and PPV3 of supplemental US screening increased with the estimated risk of advanced and invasive breast cancer. © RSNA, 2024 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Helbich and Kapetas in this issue.
Evaluation of the United States Preventative Services Task Force Screening Guidelines for Breast Cancer in a Hispanic Underserved Population

Vivian Ngo,Mona Degan,Eugene Ho,David Lanum,Fanglong Dong,Michael Neeki,Michael M. Neeki

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.8030

2020-05-08

Cureus

Abstract:There are several major breast cancer guidelines that have been promoted by various health organizations. Arrowhead Regional Medical Center (ARMC) Family Health Centers adopted the current guideline by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), which recommends breast cancer screening with mammograms starting at age 50 for low-risk women. This study evaluates the effectiveness of this screening guideline in the selected Hispanic underserved population in San Bernardino, California (CA). This is a retrospective chart review study. Data were reviewed for any female with the confirmed diagnosis of breast cancer at the Family Health Centers between 2009 and 2018. The current study showed that 25% (40 of 160) of women diagnosed with breast cancer in this selected population were less than 50 years old. This finding suggests that high vigilance in breast cancer screening may be necessary in this population.
Skin cancer screening recommendations by U.S. cancer centers: Inconsistency with national guidelines

Joyce Lee,Lynn K Han,Luc G.T. Morris,Deborah Korenstein,Jennifer L Marti

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/09691413241259991

2024-06-14

Journal of Medical Screening

Abstract:Journal of Medical Screening, Ahead of Print. ObjectiveThe incidence of melanoma has increased dramatically over the past four decades, while overall mortality has remained stable. This increase in incidence without a change in overall mortality may be due to overdiagnosis through skin cancer screening. Despite the USPSTF citing insufficient evidence for or against professional skin cancer screening in average-risk adults, U.S. skin cancer screening practices may be leading to overdiagnosis of skin cancers.MethodsTwo reviewers examined the online recommendations for skin cancer screening of 1113 U.S. cancer centers accredited by the Commission on Cancer, including 66 designated by the National Cancer Institute (NCI). Recommendations on skin cancer screening, such as age, frequency, and patient population (i.e. high-risk of developing skin cancer, "people of color") were documented.ResultsWe found that 18% of centers (202) recommended professional screening in average-risk adults, 35.8% (399) advised regular self-examination, and only 3.4% (38) cited insufficient evidence for screening practices; 49% of NCI centers (32/66) recommended screening in high-risk adults compared to 13% of non-NCI centers (135/1047; p = 0.0004); 0.45% of centers (5) mentioned the potential harms of screening, while 3.5% (39) specifically recommended screening for people of color.ConclusionOur study reveals that many U.S. cancer centers advise some form of skin cancer screening despite a lack of evidence for or against these practices. Few centers mentioned the potential harms of screening, including overdiagnosis. This indicates a need for stronger evidence for specific screening guidelines and for greater public awareness of the potential benefits and harms of routine skin cancer screening.

public, environmental & occupational health
Collaborative Modeling to Compare Different Breast Cancer Screening Strategies

Amy Trentham-Dietz,Christina Hunter Chapman,Jinani Jayasekera,Kathryn P. Lowry,Brandy M. Heckman-Stoddard,John M. Hampton,Jennifer L. Caswell-Jin,Ronald E. Gangnon,Ying Lu,Hui Huang,Sarah Stein,Liyang Sun,Eugenio J. Gil Quessep,Yuanliang Yang,Yifan Lu,Juhee Song,Diego F. Muñoz,Yisheng Li,Allison W. Kurian,Karla Kerlikowske,Ellen S. O’Meara,Brian L. Sprague,Anna N. A. Tosteson,Eric J. Feuer,Donald Berry,Sylvia K. Plevritis,Xuelin Huang,Harry J. de Koning,Nicolien T. van Ravesteyn,Sandra J. Lee,Oguzhan Alagoz,Clyde B. Schechter,Natasha K. Stout,Diana L. Miglioretti,Jeanne S. Mandelblatt

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2023.24766

IF: 11.816

2024-04-30

JAMA

Abstract:Importance The effects of breast cancer incidence changes and advances in screening and treatment on outcomes of different screening strategies are not well known. Objective To estimate outcomes of various mammography screening strategies. Design, Setting, and Population Comparison of outcomes using 6 Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) models and national data on breast cancer incidence, mammography performance, treatment effects, and other-cause mortality in US women without previous cancer diagnoses. Exposures Thirty-six screening strategies with varying start ages (40, 45, 50 years) and stop ages (74, 79 years) with digital mammography or digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) annually, biennially, or a combination of intervals. Strategies were evaluated for all women and for Black women, assuming 100% screening adherence and “real-world” treatment. Main Outcomes and Measures Estimated lifetime benefits (breast cancer deaths averted, percent reduction in breast cancer mortality, life-years gained), harms (false-positive recalls, benign biopsies, overdiagnosis), and number of mammograms per 1000 women. Results Biennial screening with DBT starting at age 40, 45, or 50 years until age 74 years averted a median of 8.2, 7.5, or 6.7 breast cancer deaths per 1000 women screened, respectively, vs no screening. Biennial DBT screening at age 40 to 74 years (vs no screening) was associated with a 30.0% breast cancer mortality reduction, 1376 false-positive recalls, and 14 overdiagnosed cases per 1000 women screened. Digital mammography screening benefits were similar to those for DBT but had more false-positive recalls. Annual screening increased benefits but resulted in more false-positive recalls and overdiagnosed cases. Benefit-to-harm ratios of continuing screening until age 79 years were similar or superior to stopping at age 74. In all strategies, women with higher-than-average breast cancer risk, higher breast density, and lower comorbidity level experienced greater screening benefits than other groups. Annual screening of Black women from age 40 to 49 years with biennial screening thereafter reduced breast cancer mortality disparities while maintaining similar benefit-to-harm trade-offs as for all women. Conclusions This modeling analysis suggests that biennial mammography screening starting at age 40 years reduces breast cancer mortality and increases life-years gained per mammogram. More intensive screening for women with greater risk of breast cancer diagnosis or death can maintain similar benefit-to-harm trade-offs and reduce mortality disparities.

medicine, general & internal
Breast Cancer Screening Using Mammography, Digital Breast Tomosynthesis, and Magnetic Resonance Imaging by Breast Density

Natasha K Stout,Diana L Miglioretti,Yu-Ru Su,Christoph I Lee,Linn Abraham,Oguzhan Alagoz,Harry J de Koning,John M Hampton,Louise Henderson,Kathryn P Lowry,Jeanne S Mandelblatt,Tracy Onega,Clyde B Schechter,Brian L Sprague,Sarah Stein,Amy Trentham-Dietz,Nicolien T van Ravesteyn,Karen J Wernli,Karla Kerlikowske,Anna N A Tosteson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2024.4224

2024-08-26

Abstract:Importance: Information on long-term benefits and harms of screening with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) with or without supplemental breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is needed for clinical and policy discussions, particularly for patients with dense breasts. Objective: To project long-term population-based outcomes for breast cancer mammography screening strategies (DBT or digital mammography) with or without supplemental MRI by breast density. Design, setting, and participants: Collaborative modeling using 3 Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) breast cancer simulation models informed by US Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium data. Simulated women born in 1980 with average breast cancer risk were included. Modeling analyses were conducted from January 2020 to December 2023. Intervention: Annual or biennial mammography screening with or without supplemental MRI by breast density starting at ages 40, 45, or 50 years through age 74 years. Main outcomes and measures: Lifetime breast cancer deaths averted, false-positive recall and false-positive biopsy recommendations per 1000 simulated women followed-up from age 40 years to death summarized as means and ranges across models. Results: Biennial DBT screening for all simulated women started at age 50 vs 40 years averted 7.4 vs 8.5 breast cancer deaths, respectively, and led to 884 vs 1392 false-positive recalls and 151 vs 221 false-positive biopsy recommendations, respectively. Biennial digital mammography had similar deaths averted and slightly more false-positive test results than DBT screening. Adding MRI for women with extremely dense breasts to biennial DBT screening for women aged 50 to 74 years increased deaths averted (7.6 vs 7.4), false-positive recalls (919 vs 884), and false-positive biopsy recommendations (180 vs 151). Extending supplemental MRI to women with heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts further increased deaths averted (8.0 vs 7.4), false-positive recalls (1088 vs 884), and false-positive biopsy recommendations (343 vs 151). The same strategy for women aged 40 to 74 years averted 9.5 deaths but led to 1850 false-positive recalls and 628 false-positive biopsy recommendations. Annual screening modestly increased estimated deaths averted but markedly increased estimated false-positive results. Conclusions and relevance: In this model-based comparative effectiveness analysis, supplemental MRI for women with dense breasts added to DBT screening led to greater benefits and increased harms. The balance of this trade-off for supplemental MRI use was more favorable when MRI was targeted to women with extremely dense breasts who comprise approximately 10% of the population.
Breast Cancer Screening for Women at Average Risk

Christina Dilaveri,Christine Klassen,Robert Fazzio,Karthik Ghosh

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12609-019-00324-4

2019-07-25

Current Breast Cancer Reports

Abstract:Purpose of ReviewThe purpose of this review is to examine the most recent data and guidelines regarding screening for breast cancer in average risk women.Recent FindingsThe differing recommendations for screening reflect differences in value judgements between the benefits (decreased cancer-related death and morbidity) and the harms (potential for overdiagnosis, false positives, false negatives, anxiety, and cost of care) of breast cancer screening.SummaryThere are multiple organizations with recommendations for breast cancer screening in women at average risk. All organizations recommend mammography to screen for breast cancer but differ in the age at which to initiate mammograms, screening interval, and the age at which to stop screening. The final decision regarding breast cancer screening should be individualized based on the patient's needs and values and include shared decision-making.
Evaluation of Population-Level Changes Associated With the 2021 US Preventive Services Task Force Lung Cancer Screening Recommendations in Community-Based Health Care Systems

Debra P Ritzwoller,Rafael Meza,Nikki M Carroll,Erica Blum-Barnett,Andrea N Burnett-Hartman,Robert T Greenlee,Stacey A Honda,Christine Neslund-Dudas,Katharine A Rendle,Anil Vachani

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.28176

2021-10-01

Abstract:Importance: The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) released updated lung cancer screening recommendations in 2021, lowering the screening age from 55 to 50 years and smoking history from 30 to 20 pack-years. These changes are expected to expand screening access to women and racial and ethnic minority groups. Objective: To estimate the population-level changes associated with the 2021 USPSTF expansion of lung cancer screening eligibility by sex, race and ethnicity, sociodemographic factors, and comorbidities in 5 community-based health care systems. Design, setting, and participants: This cohort study analyzed data of patients who received care from any of 5 community-based health care systems (which are members of the Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening Process Lung Consortium, a collaboration that conducts research to better understand how to improve the cancer screening processes in community health care settings) from January 1, 2010, through September 30, 2019. Individuals who had complete smoking history and were engaged with the health care system for 12 or more continuous months were included. Those who had never smoked or who had unknown smoking history were excluded. Exposures: Electronic health record-derived age, sex, race and ethnicity, socioeconomic status (SES), comorbidities, and smoking history. Main outcomes and measures: Differences in the proportion of the newly eligible population by age, sex, race and ethnicity, Charlson Comorbidity Index, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease diagnosis, and SES as well as lung cancer diagnoses under the 2013 recommendations vs the expected cases under the 2021 recommendations were evaluated using χ2 tests. Results: As of September 2019, there were 341 163 individuals aged 50 to 80 years who currently or previously smoked. Among these, 34 528 had electronic health record data that captured pack-year and quit-date information and were eligible for lung cancer screening according to the 2013 USPSTF recommendations. The 2021 USPSTF recommendations expanded screening eligibility to 18 533 individuals, representing a 53.7% increase. Compared with the 2013 cohort, the newly eligible 2021 population included 5833 individuals (31.5%) aged 50 to 54 years, a larger proportion of women (52.0% [n = 9631]), and more racial or ethnic minority groups. The relative increases in the proportion of newly eligible individuals were 60.6% for Asian, Native Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander; 67.4% for Hispanic; 69.7% for non-Hispanic Black; and 49.0% for non-Hispanic White groups. The relative increase for women was 13.8% higher than for men (61.2% vs 47.4%), and those with a lower comorbidity burden and lower SES had higher relative increases (eg, 68.7% for a Charlson Comorbidity Index score of 0; 61.1% for lowest SES). The 2021 recommendations were associated with an estimated 30% increase in incident lung cancer diagnoses compared with the 2013 recommendations. Conclusions and relevance: This cohort study suggests that, in diverse health care systems, adopting the 2021 USPSTF recommendations will increase the number of women, racial and ethnic minority groups, and individuals with lower SES who are eligible for lung cancer screening, thus helping to minimize the barriers to screening access for individuals with high risk for lung cancer.

USPSTF recommends biennial mammography for breast cancer screening in women aged 40 to 74 y

US expert panel says breast cancer screening should begin at 40

New Recommendations for Breast Cancer Screening—In Pursuit of Health Equity

Screening for Colorectal Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

NIH Consensus Statement on Breast Cancer Screening for Women in Their 40s: How Will It Affect Patient Care?

Updates in Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis

On Breast Cancer Screening in Older Women

Screening for Breast Cancer: A Comparative Review of Guidelines

New Approaches and Recommendations for Risk‐Adapted Breast Cancer Screening

The Impact of Mammography Screening Guideline Changes Among Women Serving in the U.S. Military

Changes in Breast Cancer Screening Prevalence in the US During the COVID-19 Pandemic, 2018-2022

Abstract GS03-02: Mammographic surveillance in early breast cancer patients aged 50 years or over: results of the Mammo-50 non-inferiority trial of annual versus less frequent mammography

USPSTF Colorectal Cancer Screening Recommendation and Uptake for Individuals Aged 45 to 49 Years

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Female Breast Cancer Screening: 2023 Update

Performance of Supplemental US Screening in Women with Dense Breasts and Varying Breast Cancer Risk: Results from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium

Evaluation of the United States Preventative Services Task Force Screening Guidelines for Breast Cancer in a Hispanic Underserved Population

Skin cancer screening recommendations by U.S. cancer centers: Inconsistency with national guidelines

Collaborative Modeling to Compare Different Breast Cancer Screening Strategies

Breast Cancer Screening Using Mammography, Digital Breast Tomosynthesis, and Magnetic Resonance Imaging by Breast Density

Breast Cancer Screening for Women at Average Risk

Evaluation of Population-Level Changes Associated With the 2021 US Preventive Services Task Force Lung Cancer Screening Recommendations in Community-Based Health Care Systems