Age-based versus Risk-based Mammography Screening in Women 40–49 Years Old: A Cross-sectional Study

Abstract

Background: Risk-based screening in women 40–49 years old has not been evaluated in routine screening mammography practice. Purpose: To use a cross-sectional study design to compare the trade-offs of risk-based and age-based screening for women 45 years of age or older to determine short-term outcomes. Materials and Methods: A retrospective cross-sectional study was performed by using a database of 20 539 prospectively interpreted consecutive digital screening mammograms in 10 280 average-risk women aged 40–49 years who were screened at an academic medical center between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2013. Two hypothetical screening scenarios were compared: an age-based (≥45 years) scenario versus a risk-based (a 5-year risk of breast cancer greater than that of an average 50-year-old) scenario. Risk factors for risk-based screening included family history, race, age, prior breast biopsy, and breast density. Outcomes included breast cancers detected at mammography, false-positive mammograms, and benign biopsy findings. Short-term outcomes were compared by using the χ2 test. Results: The screening population included 71 148 screening mammograms in 24 928 women with a mean age of 55.5 years ± 8.9 (standard deviation) (age range, 40–74 years). In women 40–49 years old, usual care included 50 screening-detected cancers, 1787 false-positive mammograms, and 384 benign biopsy results. The age-based (≥45 years) screening strategy revealed more cancers than did the risk-based strategy (34 [68%] vs 13 [26%] of 50; P < .001), while prompting more false-positive mammograms (899 [50.3%] vs 216 [12.1%] of 1787; P < .001) and benign biopsy results (175 [45.6%] vs 49 [12.8%] of 384; P < .001). The risk-based strategy demonstrated low levels of eligibility (few screenings) in the 40–44-year age group. Differences in outcomes in the 45–49-year age group explained the overall hypothetical screening strategy differences. Conclusion: Risk-based screening for women 40–49 years old includes few women in the 40–44-year age range. Significant trade-offs in the 45–49-year age group explain the overall difference between hypothetical screening scenarios, both of which reduce the benefits as well as the harms of mammography for women 40–49 years old.

Investigating the breast cancer screening–treatment–mortality pathway of women diagnosed with invasive breast cancer: Results from linked health data

“…In summary, our results showed a higher uptake of conserving sur- optimal customised screening protocols should be explored to maximise the benefit-risk ratio, including minimising the overdiagnosis risk that has been estimated at 8% in South Australia for invasive and in situ tumours (Beckmann et al, 2015;Burnside et al, 2019).…”

Preliminary Evaluation of a Breast Cancer Screening Shared Decision-Making Aid Utilized Within the Primary Care Clinical Encounter

“…Although physicians indicated less confidence in their knowledge of personal risk factors for breast cancer (21), here, in over 90% of encounters physicians explained the woman's risk for breast cancer is based on personal risk factors, identified the woman's personal risk factors, and compared her personal risk for breast cancer with that of the general population. However, physicians rarely explained risk information has uncertainties with no guarantee, a problematic phenomenon because current risk prediction models are far from perfect (29). Further, whereas women felt ill-prepared for callbacks for further imaging (21), here 96% of encounters included physicians providing information about risks of false positives and callbacks for noncancerous findings.…”

Framing the Clinical Encounter: Shared Decision-Making, Mammography Screening, and Decision Satisfaction

“…Verbal instructions matching with individual risks can guide physicians' framing strategies in an explicit way. Furthermore, as risk-based screening is found to benefit short-term mammography outcomes (Burnside et al, 2019), risk-congruent frames will be in great demand to improve SDM satisfaction. Healthcare practitioners may take the results of this study a step further by setting conversational guidelines based on the patient's personal values and preferences aided by a CDST.…”