Sharpe, Richard E.

Debates about breast cancer screening have continued in part because the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database, which began in 1974, has never included the method of detection so that it has been impossible to determine the role that early detection has played in the major decline in deaths from breast cancer that we have seen in the US since 1990. Method of detection should be added to the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database as soon as possible.

Abstract Objective Establish a radiologist-run consultation clinic to review breast density and supplemental screening exams (SSEs) directly with patients in response to breast density reporting laws. Methods Breast radiologists opened and staffed a clinic for formal patient consultations regarding breast density and SSEs. An IRB-approved questionnaire assessed patient knowledge of breast density, SSEs, and encounter satisfaction. Comparative statistical analyses were performed on knowledge-based questions. Results From February 2019 to February 2021, 294 reimbursable consultations were performed with 215 patients completing pre- and post-consultation questionnaires (survey response rate, 73%). Median patient age was 58 years (range, 34–86 years) and 9% (19/210) had a personal history of breast cancer. An increase in patient knowledge of breast density and SSEs was observed as follows: breast density categories (9% correct pre-consultation (20/215), 86% correct post-consultation (185/215), P < 0.001), dense breast effects on cancer risk (39% correct pre-consultation (83/215), 84% post-consultation (180/215)), mammogram sensitivity (90% correct pre-consultation (193/215), 94% post-consultation (201/215)), and increased cancer detection with SSEs (82% correct pre-consultation (177/215), 95% post-consultation (205/215)) (P < 0.001). Post-consultation, 96% (200/209) were satisfied with the usefulness of information, 89% (186/209) strongly agreed they had sufficient knowledge of SSEs, and 81% (167/205) agreed they would like future opportunities to meet with a breast radiologist. Conclusion A consultation clinic staffed by breast radiologists focused on breast density and supplemental breast cancer screening can provide personalized patient counseling, engage patients in shared decision making, assist referring clinicians, and support high quality patient-centered care.

Abstract Objective Evaluate women’s anxiety and experience undergoing screening mammography during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods An IRB-approved anonymous survey was administered to women receiving screening mammography across six sites in the U.S. and Singapore from October 7, 2020, to March 11, 2021. Using a 1–5 Likert scale, women rated their pre- and post-visit anxiety regarding having their mammogram during the COVID-19 pandemic, importance of observed COVID-19 precautions, and personal risk factors for breast cancer and severe COVID-19 illness. Post-visit change in anxiety was evaluated. Multivariable logistic regression was used to test associations of pre-visit anxiety with breast cancer and COVID-19 risk factors. Results In total, 1086 women completed the survey. Of these, 59% (630/1061) had >1 breast cancer risk factor; 27% (282/1060) had >1 COVID-19 risk factors. Forty-two percent (445/1065) experienced pre-visit anxiety. Pre-visit anxiety was independently associated with risk factors for severe COVID-19 (OR for >2 vs 0 risk factors: 2.04, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.11–3.76) and breast cancer (OR for >2 vs 0 risk factors: 1.71, 95% CI: 1.17–2.50), after adjusting for age and site. Twenty-six percent (272/1065) of women reported post-visit anxiety, an absolute 16% decrease from pre-visit anxiety (95% CI: 14%–19%, P < 0.001). Provider masking (941/1075, 88%) and physical distancing (861/1085, 79%) were rated as the most important precautions. Conclusion Pre-visit anxiety was associated with COVID-19 or breast cancer risk factors and declined significantly after screening mammography. Provider masking and physical distancing were rated the most important precautions implemented by imaging clinics.

Abstract Background: Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is an emerging breast imaging technique utilizing iodinated contrast to highlight areas of neovascularity. The role of CEM in patients with breast implants has not yet been characterized. We report our clinical experience of CEM in patients with breast augmentation surgery to better understand the potential diagnostic utility and limitations of CEM in the setting of breast implants. Materials and Methods: A HIPPA compliant, IRB exempt single-institution review of prospective CEM cases who had “breast implants” in their report between 01/2015 and 03/2020. Medical records were reviewed to supplement database information. Results: Forty-six patients were included with a mean age of 52 years (range 33-72). Clinical indications included: high risk research screen 3 (6%), diagnostic evaluation for abnormal imaging 24 (52%), further evaluation of newly diagnosed breast cancer 12 (26%) or assessment of neoadjuvant treatment response 7 (15%). Thirty patients had malignant lesions. Histology was invasive ductal carcinoma (90%), invasive lobular carcinoma (7%), and ductal carcinoma in situ (3%). CEM identified the index cancer and extent of disease in 28/30 (93%) of malignant cases. In two patients (7%), the malignant lesion was not included in the field-of-view due to its location. One of these lesions was a far medial mass within the breast which was detected by ultrasound alone. The other false negative CEM was a palpable axillary mass negative on both mammogram (MG) and MRI but seen by ultrasound. Twenty-three (50%) underwent additional breast MRI of which 20 had an already diagnosed cancer. the findings on CEM were concordant with MR imaging for the index lesion in 19/20 (95%) cases (kappa=0.86; p <0.001). Six additional lesions were found by CEM and confirmed by MRI. Of these lesions, 33% were found to be malignant and changed the surgical procedure. Four were only seen on CEM (no MRI comparison was available) and 75% were found to be malignant. One was only seen on MRI and was benign. One additional lesion was only seen as an asymmetry on MG without CEM or MRI correlate. This was benign on both the biopsy and surgical pathology. Conclusions: CEM appears to be a valuable breast imaging modality for diagnostic evaluations and surgical staging, including patients with breast implants. Due to technical artifacts and positioning limitations for posterior lesions, we recommend performing CEM with implant displaced views. Breast centers that use CEM, should be aware of field of view as a potential limitation when evaluating extent of disease in patients with breast augmentation. Citation Format: Molly Carnahan, Barbara Pockaj, Victor Pizzitola, Marina Giurescu, Roxanne Lorans, William Eversman, Richard Sharpe, Patricia Cronin, Donald Northfelt, Karen Anderson, Brenda Ernst, Bhavika Patel. Experience of contrast-enhanced mammography in patients with breast augmentation surgery [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PS3-23.

Abstract Objective and Rationale: To investigate the utility of screening Contrast Enhanced Mammography (CEM) imaging as a supplemental screening tool in women at elevated risk for breast cancer. Materials and Methods: This prospective, single institution, IRB approved observational study was conducted in asymptomatic women 35 years of age or older who were deemed at elevated risk of breast cancer, defined as IBIS v.8.0 lifetime risk of breast cancer score >15% or a prior personal history of breast cancer. Enrollment started in January 2019 and is on-going. An interim data analysis was performed. Women were invited to undergo supplemental CEM screening within 180 days of negative (BI-RADS 1 or 2) conventional 2D/3D screening mammography (MG). Patients with prior screening MBI, ultrasound or MR imaging within 12 months were excluded from study participation. Outcome measures were supplemental cancer detection rates, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of CEM, along with their 95% confidence intervals, as well as the biologic profiles of MG-occult, CEM detected cancers. Results: A total of 351 women were enrolled in this prospective study over a 20-month period. To date, we have 1 year follow up on 106 cases with negative follow-up MG. Average age of the participants was 56 years ± 9.44 (standard deviation); 11 patients had screening 2D MG, 333 had combined 3-D and 2-D screening MG; 309 dense and 37 non-dense breasts based on ACR BI-RADS categories. CEM depicted 8 additional breast cancers (table 1), which were otherwise MG occult, for an overall supplemental cancer detection rate of 22.7 per 1000 patients, 95% CI (9.9, 44.3). 1 false negative cancer on CEM imaging which was further detected on MR imaging only. Biopsy revealed 16 benign changes (16/28=57%), 4 high-risk lesions (4/28=14%), and 8 breast cancers (8/28=29%) (table 2). CEM imaging screening offered high specificity (0.942, 95% CI (0.917, 0.967), high NPV 0.997, 95% CI (0.991, 1.000) and moderate PPV (0.286, 95% CI (0.118, 0.453) and sensitivity (0.889, 95% CI (0.684, 1.000)). Size of CEM detected cancers ranged from 7 to 57 mm. Conclusion: This pilot trial demonstrates a supplemental cancer detection rate of 22.7 per 1000 during prevalence round of CEM screening in women at an elevated risk for breast cancer. These initial results are comparable to results reported for high-risk surveillance MR imaging. Larger, multi-institutional high-risk CEM trials are needed for those patients who are not otherwise undergoing regular supplemental surveillance MR imaging. Citation Format: Bhavika K. Patel, Victor Pizzitola, Donald Northfelt, Karen Anderson, Marina Giurescu, Gina Mazza, Roxanne Lorans, William Eversman, Richard Sharpe, Juliana Kling, Denise Millstine, Ernst Brenda, Patricia Cronin, Heidi Apsey, Jennifer Palmieri, Barbara Pockaj, Michele Halyard. Supplemental contrast enhanced mammography screening of women with elevated risk of breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PS2-41.