Breast Cancer

Key clinical point: In women with high levels of background parenchymal enhancement (BPE), a simultaneous high-temporal/high-spatial resolution (HTHS) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) protocol detected an additional 15.7 cases of breast cancer (BC) per 1000 patients than the standard high-spatial resolution MRI protocol while concomitantly decreasing the rate of unnecessary biopsies by ~10%.

Major finding: HTHS vs standard protocol improved the BC detection rate per 1000 patients (23.6 vs 7.9; P = .021), increased the positive predictive value of biopsy (16.0% vs 6.3%; P = .014), and decreased the rate of unnecessary biopsies by 9.8%.

Study details: This retrospective study included 1414 women with 1481 high-BPE examinations.

Disclosures: This study was supported partly by the US National Cancer Institute. JS Sung, K Feigin, and K Pinker declared serving in leadership roles and consulting roles or as members of speakers’ bureaus of or receiving research funding from various sources.

Source: Eskreis-Winkler S et al. High-temporal/high-spatial resolution breast magnetic resonance imaging improves diagnostic accuracy compared with standard breast magnetic resonance imaging in patients with high background parenchymal enhancement. J Clin Oncol. 2023 (Aug 10). doi: 10.1200/JCO.22.00635

Key clinical point: In women with high levels of background parenchymal enhancement (BPE), a simultaneous high-temporal/high-spatial resolution (HTHS) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) protocol detected an additional 15.7 cases of breast cancer (BC) per 1000 patients than the standard high-spatial resolution MRI protocol while concomitantly decreasing the rate of unnecessary biopsies by ~10%.

Major finding: HTHS vs standard protocol improved the BC detection rate per 1000 patients (23.6 vs 7.9; P = .021), increased the positive predictive value of biopsy (16.0% vs 6.3%; P = .014), and decreased the rate of unnecessary biopsies by 9.8%.

Study details: This retrospective study included 1414 women with 1481 high-BPE examinations.

Disclosures: This study was supported partly by the US National Cancer Institute. JS Sung, K Feigin, and K Pinker declared serving in leadership roles and consulting roles or as members of speakers’ bureaus of or receiving research funding from various sources.

Source: Eskreis-Winkler S et al. High-temporal/high-spatial resolution breast magnetic resonance imaging improves diagnostic accuracy compared with standard breast magnetic resonance imaging in patients with high background parenchymal enhancement. J Clin Oncol. 2023 (Aug 10). doi: 10.1200/JCO.22.00635

Key clinical point: In women with high levels of background parenchymal enhancement (BPE), a simultaneous high-temporal/high-spatial resolution (HTHS) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) protocol detected an additional 15.7 cases of breast cancer (BC) per 1000 patients than the standard high-spatial resolution MRI protocol while concomitantly decreasing the rate of unnecessary biopsies by ~10%.

Major finding: HTHS vs standard protocol improved the BC detection rate per 1000 patients (23.6 vs 7.9; P = .021), increased the positive predictive value of biopsy (16.0% vs 6.3%; P = .014), and decreased the rate of unnecessary biopsies by 9.8%.

Study details: This retrospective study included 1414 women with 1481 high-BPE examinations.

Disclosures: This study was supported partly by the US National Cancer Institute. JS Sung, K Feigin, and K Pinker declared serving in leadership roles and consulting roles or as members of speakers’ bureaus of or receiving research funding from various sources.

Source: Eskreis-Winkler S et al. High-temporal/high-spatial resolution breast magnetic resonance imaging improves diagnostic accuracy compared with standard breast magnetic resonance imaging in patients with high background parenchymal enhancement. J Clin Oncol. 2023 (Aug 10). doi: 10.1200/JCO.22.00635

Key clinical point: In patients with locally advanced triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), neoadjuvant apatinib (Apa) plus dose-dense paclitaxel and carboplatin (ddTCb) was more effective in improving clinical outcomes than ddTCb alone and showed an acceptable safety profile.

Major finding: A significantly higher proportion of patients in the Apa + ddTCb vs ddTCb treatment group achieved pathological complete response (60.9% vs 30.4%; P = .009) and underwent breast-conserving surgery (47.8% vs 21.7%; P = .016). The incidence of adverse events was higher in the Apa + ddTCb treatment arm, but they were generally acceptable.

Study details: This prospective cohort study included 23 patients with stages I-IIIC TNBC who received neoadjuvant Apa + ddTCb therapy matched with 69 patients with stages I-IIIC TNBC who received neoadjuvant ddTCb therapy only.

Disclosures: This study was supported by CAMS Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences and the Translational research project of Medical Oncology Key Foundation of Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Liu J, Xu B, Zhang P, et al. Efficacy and safety of apatinib combined with dose-dense paclitaxel and carboplatin in neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced triple-negative breast cancer: A prospective cohort study with propensity-matched analysis. Int J Cancer. 2023 (Sep 7). doi: 10.1002/ijc.34717

Key clinical point: In patients with locally advanced triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), neoadjuvant apatinib (Apa) plus dose-dense paclitaxel and carboplatin (ddTCb) was more effective in improving clinical outcomes than ddTCb alone and showed an acceptable safety profile.

Major finding: A significantly higher proportion of patients in the Apa + ddTCb vs ddTCb treatment group achieved pathological complete response (60.9% vs 30.4%; P = .009) and underwent breast-conserving surgery (47.8% vs 21.7%; P = .016). The incidence of adverse events was higher in the Apa + ddTCb treatment arm, but they were generally acceptable.

Study details: This prospective cohort study included 23 patients with stages I-IIIC TNBC who received neoadjuvant Apa + ddTCb therapy matched with 69 patients with stages I-IIIC TNBC who received neoadjuvant ddTCb therapy only.

Disclosures: This study was supported by CAMS Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences and the Translational research project of Medical Oncology Key Foundation of Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Liu J, Xu B, Zhang P, et al. Efficacy and safety of apatinib combined with dose-dense paclitaxel and carboplatin in neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced triple-negative breast cancer: A prospective cohort study with propensity-matched analysis. Int J Cancer. 2023 (Sep 7). doi: 10.1002/ijc.34717

Key clinical point: In patients with locally advanced triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), neoadjuvant apatinib (Apa) plus dose-dense paclitaxel and carboplatin (ddTCb) was more effective in improving clinical outcomes than ddTCb alone and showed an acceptable safety profile.

Major finding: A significantly higher proportion of patients in the Apa + ddTCb vs ddTCb treatment group achieved pathological complete response (60.9% vs 30.4%; P = .009) and underwent breast-conserving surgery (47.8% vs 21.7%; P = .016). The incidence of adverse events was higher in the Apa + ddTCb treatment arm, but they were generally acceptable.

Study details: This prospective cohort study included 23 patients with stages I-IIIC TNBC who received neoadjuvant Apa + ddTCb therapy matched with 69 patients with stages I-IIIC TNBC who received neoadjuvant ddTCb therapy only.

Disclosures: This study was supported by CAMS Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences and the Translational research project of Medical Oncology Key Foundation of Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Liu J, Xu B, Zhang P, et al. Efficacy and safety of apatinib combined with dose-dense paclitaxel and carboplatin in neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced triple-negative breast cancer: A prospective cohort study with propensity-matched analysis. Int J Cancer. 2023 (Sep 7). doi: 10.1002/ijc.34717

Key clinical point: Trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) showed promising anti-tumor activity with a manageable safety profile regardless of prior exposure to fluoropyrimidine therapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer (BC).

Major finding: The median durations of progression-free survival were 5.7 months and 9.4 months in patients with and without prior exposure to fluoropyrimidine therapy, respectively. Neutropenia (81.8%), fatigue (29.7%), anorexia (25.7%), and nausea (25.7%) were the most common all-grade treatment-related adverse events.

Study details: Findings are from a phase 2 study including 74 patients with metastatic BC with or without prior exposure to fluoropyrimidine therapy who received FTD/TPI.

Disclosures: This study was funded by a grant from the National Medical Research Council, Singapore. Some authors declared receiving research funding, honoraria, consulting fees, or travel support from or having other ties with various sources.

Source: Lim JSJ et al. Phase II study of trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) in metastatic breast cancers with or without prior exposure to fluoropyrimidines. Eur J Cancer. 2023;113311 (Aug 25). doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2023.113311

Key clinical point: Trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) showed promising anti-tumor activity with a manageable safety profile regardless of prior exposure to fluoropyrimidine therapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer (BC).

Major finding: The median durations of progression-free survival were 5.7 months and 9.4 months in patients with and without prior exposure to fluoropyrimidine therapy, respectively. Neutropenia (81.8%), fatigue (29.7%), anorexia (25.7%), and nausea (25.7%) were the most common all-grade treatment-related adverse events.

Study details: Findings are from a phase 2 study including 74 patients with metastatic BC with or without prior exposure to fluoropyrimidine therapy who received FTD/TPI.

Disclosures: This study was funded by a grant from the National Medical Research Council, Singapore. Some authors declared receiving research funding, honoraria, consulting fees, or travel support from or having other ties with various sources.

Source: Lim JSJ et al. Phase II study of trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) in metastatic breast cancers with or without prior exposure to fluoropyrimidines. Eur J Cancer. 2023;113311 (Aug 25). doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2023.113311

Key clinical point: Trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) showed promising anti-tumor activity with a manageable safety profile regardless of prior exposure to fluoropyrimidine therapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer (BC).

Major finding: The median durations of progression-free survival were 5.7 months and 9.4 months in patients with and without prior exposure to fluoropyrimidine therapy, respectively. Neutropenia (81.8%), fatigue (29.7%), anorexia (25.7%), and nausea (25.7%) were the most common all-grade treatment-related adverse events.

Study details: Findings are from a phase 2 study including 74 patients with metastatic BC with or without prior exposure to fluoropyrimidine therapy who received FTD/TPI.

Disclosures: This study was funded by a grant from the National Medical Research Council, Singapore. Some authors declared receiving research funding, honoraria, consulting fees, or travel support from or having other ties with various sources.

Source: Lim JSJ et al. Phase II study of trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) in metastatic breast cancers with or without prior exposure to fluoropyrimidines. Eur J Cancer. 2023;113311 (Aug 25). doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2023.113311

Key clinical point: Giredestrant demonstrated stronger anti-proliferative activity than anastrozole and was well-tolerated in patients with estrogen receptor-positive (ER+ ), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2−), untreated early breast cancer (BC).

Major finding: At week 2, giredestrant vs anastrozole had a stronger anti-proliferative effect as indicated by greater relative geometric mean reduction of Ki67 scores (−75% vs −67%; P = .043). Neutropenia (26% and 27%, respectively) and decreased neutrophil count (15% and 15%, respectively) were the most common grade 3-4 adverse events observed in the giredestrant + palbociclib and anastrozole + palbociclib treatment arms.

Study details: Findings are from the phase 2 coopERA Breast Cancer trial including 221 postmenopausal patients with clinical T stage (cT)1c to cT4a-c, ER+ /HER2− early BC who were randomly assigned to receive giredestrant or anastrozole in combination with palbociclib.

Disclosures: This study was funded by F Hoffmann-La Roche. Seven authors declared being employees or stockholders of F Hoffmann-La Roche, and the other authors declared ties with various sources.

Source: Hurvitz SA et al on behalf of thecoopERA Breast Cancer study group. Neoadjuvant palbociclib plus either giredestrant or anastrozole in oestrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative, early breast cancer (coopERA Breast Cancer): An open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol. 2023;24(9):1029-1041 (Aug 29). doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(23)00268-1

Key clinical point: Giredestrant demonstrated stronger anti-proliferative activity than anastrozole and was well-tolerated in patients with estrogen receptor-positive (ER+ ), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2−), untreated early breast cancer (BC).

Major finding: At week 2, giredestrant vs anastrozole had a stronger anti-proliferative effect as indicated by greater relative geometric mean reduction of Ki67 scores (−75% vs −67%; P = .043). Neutropenia (26% and 27%, respectively) and decreased neutrophil count (15% and 15%, respectively) were the most common grade 3-4 adverse events observed in the giredestrant + palbociclib and anastrozole + palbociclib treatment arms.

Study details: Findings are from the phase 2 coopERA Breast Cancer trial including 221 postmenopausal patients with clinical T stage (cT)1c to cT4a-c, ER+ /HER2− early BC who were randomly assigned to receive giredestrant or anastrozole in combination with palbociclib.

Disclosures: This study was funded by F Hoffmann-La Roche. Seven authors declared being employees or stockholders of F Hoffmann-La Roche, and the other authors declared ties with various sources.

Source: Hurvitz SA et al on behalf of thecoopERA Breast Cancer study group. Neoadjuvant palbociclib plus either giredestrant or anastrozole in oestrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative, early breast cancer (coopERA Breast Cancer): An open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol. 2023;24(9):1029-1041 (Aug 29). doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(23)00268-1

Key clinical point: Giredestrant demonstrated stronger anti-proliferative activity than anastrozole and was well-tolerated in patients with estrogen receptor-positive (ER+ ), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2−), untreated early breast cancer (BC).

Major finding: At week 2, giredestrant vs anastrozole had a stronger anti-proliferative effect as indicated by greater relative geometric mean reduction of Ki67 scores (−75% vs −67%; P = .043). Neutropenia (26% and 27%, respectively) and decreased neutrophil count (15% and 15%, respectively) were the most common grade 3-4 adverse events observed in the giredestrant + palbociclib and anastrozole + palbociclib treatment arms.

Study details: Findings are from the phase 2 coopERA Breast Cancer trial including 221 postmenopausal patients with clinical T stage (cT)1c to cT4a-c, ER+ /HER2− early BC who were randomly assigned to receive giredestrant or anastrozole in combination with palbociclib.

Disclosures: This study was funded by F Hoffmann-La Roche. Seven authors declared being employees or stockholders of F Hoffmann-La Roche, and the other authors declared ties with various sources.

Source: Hurvitz SA et al on behalf of thecoopERA Breast Cancer study group. Neoadjuvant palbociclib plus either giredestrant or anastrozole in oestrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative, early breast cancer (coopERA Breast Cancer): An open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol. 2023;24(9):1029-1041 (Aug 29). doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(23)00268-1

Key clinical point: The incidence rate of local recurrence was low even after omitting radiotherapy in women with luminal A breast cancer (BC) age ≥55 years who underwent breast-conserving surgery (BCS) followed by endocrine therapy.

Major finding: At 5 years, the cumulative incidence of local recurrence was low (2.3%; 95% CI 1.2%-4.1%), with 1.9% of patients (90% CI 1.1%-3.2%) reporting contralateral BC recurrences and 2.7% of patients (90% CI 1.6%-4.1%) reporting recurrences of any type.

Study details: This prospective cohort study included 500 women with T1N0 (tumor size < 2 cm and node negative) luminal A BC age ≥ 55 years who had undergone BCS followed by adjuvant endocrine therapy.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Canadian Cancer Society and Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation. Some authors declared serving as consultants or members of data safety and monitoring boards or having ties with various sources.

Source: Whelan TJ et al for the LUMINA Study Investigators. Omitting radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery in luminal A breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2023;389(7):612-619 (Aug 17). doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2302344

Key clinical point: The incidence rate of local recurrence was low even after omitting radiotherapy in women with luminal A breast cancer (BC) age ≥55 years who underwent breast-conserving surgery (BCS) followed by endocrine therapy.

Major finding: At 5 years, the cumulative incidence of local recurrence was low (2.3%; 95% CI 1.2%-4.1%), with 1.9% of patients (90% CI 1.1%-3.2%) reporting contralateral BC recurrences and 2.7% of patients (90% CI 1.6%-4.1%) reporting recurrences of any type.

Study details: This prospective cohort study included 500 women with T1N0 (tumor size < 2 cm and node negative) luminal A BC age ≥ 55 years who had undergone BCS followed by adjuvant endocrine therapy.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Canadian Cancer Society and Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation. Some authors declared serving as consultants or members of data safety and monitoring boards or having ties with various sources.

Source: Whelan TJ et al for the LUMINA Study Investigators. Omitting radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery in luminal A breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2023;389(7):612-619 (Aug 17). doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2302344

Key clinical point: The incidence rate of local recurrence was low even after omitting radiotherapy in women with luminal A breast cancer (BC) age ≥55 years who underwent breast-conserving surgery (BCS) followed by endocrine therapy.

Major finding: At 5 years, the cumulative incidence of local recurrence was low (2.3%; 95% CI 1.2%-4.1%), with 1.9% of patients (90% CI 1.1%-3.2%) reporting contralateral BC recurrences and 2.7% of patients (90% CI 1.6%-4.1%) reporting recurrences of any type.

Study details: This prospective cohort study included 500 women with T1N0 (tumor size < 2 cm and node negative) luminal A BC age ≥ 55 years who had undergone BCS followed by adjuvant endocrine therapy.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Canadian Cancer Society and Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation. Some authors declared serving as consultants or members of data safety and monitoring boards or having ties with various sources.

Source: Whelan TJ et al for the LUMINA Study Investigators. Omitting radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery in luminal A breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2023;389(7):612-619 (Aug 17). doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2302344

TOPLINE:

Regular exercise can significantly reduce a cancer survivor’s mortality from cancer or other causes, a large analysis finds.

METHODOLOGY:

• Following a cancer diagnosis, the impact of exercise on all cause and cause-specific mortality among survivors, and whether the benefit of exercise differs by cancer site, remains unclear.
• To investigate, researchers leveraged data from 11,480 cancer survivors in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian cancer screening trial.
• Postdiagnosis exercise levels were quantified via a questionnaire. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality; secondary endpoints were deaths from cancer and other causes.
• Cox models estimated cause-specific hazard ratio for all-cause mortality as well as cancer and noncancer mortality based on whether survivors met or did not meet exercise guidelines.
• Meeting national exercise guidelines meant moderate-intensity exercise 4 or more days per week with sessions lasting, on average, 30 minutes or longer; and/or strenuous-intensity exercise 2 or more days per week with sessions lasting, on average, 20 minutes or longer.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 62% of participants were deemed nonexercisers (no exercise or exercise below guidelines) and 38% were classified as exercisers (meeting or exceeding guidelines). After a median follow-up of 16 years from diagnosis, researchers documented 4,665 deaths – 1,940 from cancer and 2,725 from other causes.
• Exercise at recommended levels was associated with “near-universal” all-cause mortality benefit for most cancers represented, including prostate, breast, endometrial, renal, and head and neck cancers.
• In multivariate analysis, compared with nonexercisers, exercisers had a 25% reduced risk of all-cause mortality (HR, 0.75), with the benefit apparent within 5 years and persisting for at least 20 years after diagnosis.
• Exercise was associated with a 21% reduction in cancer mortality and a 28% reduction in mortality from other causes, with more exercise demonstrating a greater benefit on cancer-specific mortality risk.

IN PRACTICE:

Overall, “our findings show exercise is a holistic strategy that may complement contemporary management approaches to further reduce cancer mortality (in select sites) while simultaneously lowering risk of death from other competing causes, which combine to improve all-cause mortality,” the authors conclude. “This benefit was observed within a few years after diagnosis and sustained for at least 20 years.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Jessica Lavery, MS, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

Exercise habits were self-reported at one time point, not measured more objectively over time using wearable devices. The population studied was predominantly non-Hispanic White. The researchers could not determine whether exercise habits reflected lower disease and/or treatment-related toxicities as opposed to direct exercise-induced effects or better adherence to a healthy lifestyle.

DISCLOSURES:

Support for the study was provided by AKTIV Against Cancer and grants from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center. Disclosures for the study authors are available with the original article.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Regular exercise can significantly reduce a cancer survivor’s mortality from cancer or other causes, a large analysis finds.

METHODOLOGY:

• Following a cancer diagnosis, the impact of exercise on all cause and cause-specific mortality among survivors, and whether the benefit of exercise differs by cancer site, remains unclear.
• To investigate, researchers leveraged data from 11,480 cancer survivors in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian cancer screening trial.
• Postdiagnosis exercise levels were quantified via a questionnaire. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality; secondary endpoints were deaths from cancer and other causes.
• Cox models estimated cause-specific hazard ratio for all-cause mortality as well as cancer and noncancer mortality based on whether survivors met or did not meet exercise guidelines.
• Meeting national exercise guidelines meant moderate-intensity exercise 4 or more days per week with sessions lasting, on average, 30 minutes or longer; and/or strenuous-intensity exercise 2 or more days per week with sessions lasting, on average, 20 minutes or longer.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 62% of participants were deemed nonexercisers (no exercise or exercise below guidelines) and 38% were classified as exercisers (meeting or exceeding guidelines). After a median follow-up of 16 years from diagnosis, researchers documented 4,665 deaths – 1,940 from cancer and 2,725 from other causes.
• Exercise at recommended levels was associated with “near-universal” all-cause mortality benefit for most cancers represented, including prostate, breast, endometrial, renal, and head and neck cancers.
• In multivariate analysis, compared with nonexercisers, exercisers had a 25% reduced risk of all-cause mortality (HR, 0.75), with the benefit apparent within 5 years and persisting for at least 20 years after diagnosis.
• Exercise was associated with a 21% reduction in cancer mortality and a 28% reduction in mortality from other causes, with more exercise demonstrating a greater benefit on cancer-specific mortality risk.

IN PRACTICE:

Overall, “our findings show exercise is a holistic strategy that may complement contemporary management approaches to further reduce cancer mortality (in select sites) while simultaneously lowering risk of death from other competing causes, which combine to improve all-cause mortality,” the authors conclude. “This benefit was observed within a few years after diagnosis and sustained for at least 20 years.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Jessica Lavery, MS, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

Exercise habits were self-reported at one time point, not measured more objectively over time using wearable devices. The population studied was predominantly non-Hispanic White. The researchers could not determine whether exercise habits reflected lower disease and/or treatment-related toxicities as opposed to direct exercise-induced effects or better adherence to a healthy lifestyle.

DISCLOSURES:

Support for the study was provided by AKTIV Against Cancer and grants from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center. Disclosures for the study authors are available with the original article.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Regular exercise can significantly reduce a cancer survivor’s mortality from cancer or other causes, a large analysis finds.

METHODOLOGY:

• Following a cancer diagnosis, the impact of exercise on all cause and cause-specific mortality among survivors, and whether the benefit of exercise differs by cancer site, remains unclear.
• To investigate, researchers leveraged data from 11,480 cancer survivors in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian cancer screening trial.
• Postdiagnosis exercise levels were quantified via a questionnaire. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality; secondary endpoints were deaths from cancer and other causes.
• Cox models estimated cause-specific hazard ratio for all-cause mortality as well as cancer and noncancer mortality based on whether survivors met or did not meet exercise guidelines.
• Meeting national exercise guidelines meant moderate-intensity exercise 4 or more days per week with sessions lasting, on average, 30 minutes or longer; and/or strenuous-intensity exercise 2 or more days per week with sessions lasting, on average, 20 minutes or longer.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 62% of participants were deemed nonexercisers (no exercise or exercise below guidelines) and 38% were classified as exercisers (meeting or exceeding guidelines). After a median follow-up of 16 years from diagnosis, researchers documented 4,665 deaths – 1,940 from cancer and 2,725 from other causes.
• Exercise at recommended levels was associated with “near-universal” all-cause mortality benefit for most cancers represented, including prostate, breast, endometrial, renal, and head and neck cancers.
• In multivariate analysis, compared with nonexercisers, exercisers had a 25% reduced risk of all-cause mortality (HR, 0.75), with the benefit apparent within 5 years and persisting for at least 20 years after diagnosis.
• Exercise was associated with a 21% reduction in cancer mortality and a 28% reduction in mortality from other causes, with more exercise demonstrating a greater benefit on cancer-specific mortality risk.

IN PRACTICE:

Overall, “our findings show exercise is a holistic strategy that may complement contemporary management approaches to further reduce cancer mortality (in select sites) while simultaneously lowering risk of death from other competing causes, which combine to improve all-cause mortality,” the authors conclude. “This benefit was observed within a few years after diagnosis and sustained for at least 20 years.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Jessica Lavery, MS, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

Exercise habits were self-reported at one time point, not measured more objectively over time using wearable devices. The population studied was predominantly non-Hispanic White. The researchers could not determine whether exercise habits reflected lower disease and/or treatment-related toxicities as opposed to direct exercise-induced effects or better adherence to a healthy lifestyle.

DISCLOSURES:

Support for the study was provided by AKTIV Against Cancer and grants from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center. Disclosures for the study authors are available with the original article.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

PURPOSE

This project aims to describe the demographics of Veterans diagnosed with breast and gynecologic cancers and assess differences compared to the general population.

BACKGROUND

With an increasing number of women Veterans enrolling in the VA, it is crucial for oncologists to be prepared to provide care for VeterS32 • SEPTEMBER 2023 www.mdedge.com/fedprac/avaho NOTES ans diagnosed with breast and gynecologic cancers. Despite the rising incidence of these cancers among Veterans, there is limited characterization of the demographic profile of this population. Understanding the unique characteristics of Veterans with these malignancies, distinct from the general population, is essential for the Veterans Administration (VA) to develop programs and enhance care for these patients.

METHODS/DATA ANALYSIS

Consult records from the VA Corporate Data Warehouse between January 1, 2021, and December 31, 2022, were analyzed to identify Veterans with newly diagnosed breast, uterine, ovarian, cervical, and vulvovaginal cancer. Demographic were evaluated. Data on the general population were obtained data from SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) 19 database for 2020.

RESULTS

A total of 3,304 Veterans diagnosed with breast cancer and 918 Veterans with gynecologic cancers were identified (uterine, n = 365; cervical, n = 344, ovarian, n = 177; vulvovaginal, n = 32). Veterans were found to be younger than the general population, with a mean age at diagnosis of 59 for Veterans with breast cancer to 63 for non-veterans. Among those with gynecologic cancers, the mean age at diagnosis for Veterans was 55 compared to 61 for non-veterans. Male breast cancer cases were more prevalent among Veterans, accounting for 11% in the VA compared to 1% in SEER. The Veteran cohort also displayed a higher proportion of Black patients, with 30% of breast cancer cases in the VA being Black compared to 12% in SEER.

CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS

Veterans diagnosed with breast and gynecologic cancers exhibit unique demographic characteristics compared to the general population. They tend to be younger and have a higher representation of Black patients. The incidence of male breast cancer is notably higher among Veterans. As the prevalence of these cancer types continue to rise among Veterans, it is vital for oncologists to be aware of and adequately address the unique health needs of this population. These findings emphasize the importance of tailored strategies and programs to provide optimal care for Veterans with breast and gynecologic cancers.

PURPOSE

This project aims to describe the demographics of Veterans diagnosed with breast and gynecologic cancers and assess differences compared to the general population.

BACKGROUND

With an increasing number of women Veterans enrolling in the VA, it is crucial for oncologists to be prepared to provide care for VeterS32 • SEPTEMBER 2023 www.mdedge.com/fedprac/avaho NOTES ans diagnosed with breast and gynecologic cancers. Despite the rising incidence of these cancers among Veterans, there is limited characterization of the demographic profile of this population. Understanding the unique characteristics of Veterans with these malignancies, distinct from the general population, is essential for the Veterans Administration (VA) to develop programs and enhance care for these patients.

METHODS/DATA ANALYSIS

Consult records from the VA Corporate Data Warehouse between January 1, 2021, and December 31, 2022, were analyzed to identify Veterans with newly diagnosed breast, uterine, ovarian, cervical, and vulvovaginal cancer. Demographic were evaluated. Data on the general population were obtained data from SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) 19 database for 2020.

RESULTS

A total of 3,304 Veterans diagnosed with breast cancer and 918 Veterans with gynecologic cancers were identified (uterine, n = 365; cervical, n = 344, ovarian, n = 177; vulvovaginal, n = 32). Veterans were found to be younger than the general population, with a mean age at diagnosis of 59 for Veterans with breast cancer to 63 for non-veterans. Among those with gynecologic cancers, the mean age at diagnosis for Veterans was 55 compared to 61 for non-veterans. Male breast cancer cases were more prevalent among Veterans, accounting for 11% in the VA compared to 1% in SEER. The Veteran cohort also displayed a higher proportion of Black patients, with 30% of breast cancer cases in the VA being Black compared to 12% in SEER.

CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS

Veterans diagnosed with breast and gynecologic cancers exhibit unique demographic characteristics compared to the general population. They tend to be younger and have a higher representation of Black patients. The incidence of male breast cancer is notably higher among Veterans. As the prevalence of these cancer types continue to rise among Veterans, it is vital for oncologists to be aware of and adequately address the unique health needs of this population. These findings emphasize the importance of tailored strategies and programs to provide optimal care for Veterans with breast and gynecologic cancers.

PURPOSE

This project aims to describe the demographics of Veterans diagnosed with breast and gynecologic cancers and assess differences compared to the general population.

BACKGROUND

With an increasing number of women Veterans enrolling in the VA, it is crucial for oncologists to be prepared to provide care for VeterS32 • SEPTEMBER 2023 www.mdedge.com/fedprac/avaho NOTES ans diagnosed with breast and gynecologic cancers. Despite the rising incidence of these cancers among Veterans, there is limited characterization of the demographic profile of this population. Understanding the unique characteristics of Veterans with these malignancies, distinct from the general population, is essential for the Veterans Administration (VA) to develop programs and enhance care for these patients.

METHODS/DATA ANALYSIS

Consult records from the VA Corporate Data Warehouse between January 1, 2021, and December 31, 2022, were analyzed to identify Veterans with newly diagnosed breast, uterine, ovarian, cervical, and vulvovaginal cancer. Demographic were evaluated. Data on the general population were obtained data from SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) 19 database for 2020.

RESULTS

A total of 3,304 Veterans diagnosed with breast cancer and 918 Veterans with gynecologic cancers were identified (uterine, n = 365; cervical, n = 344, ovarian, n = 177; vulvovaginal, n = 32). Veterans were found to be younger than the general population, with a mean age at diagnosis of 59 for Veterans with breast cancer to 63 for non-veterans. Among those with gynecologic cancers, the mean age at diagnosis for Veterans was 55 compared to 61 for non-veterans. Male breast cancer cases were more prevalent among Veterans, accounting for 11% in the VA compared to 1% in SEER. The Veteran cohort also displayed a higher proportion of Black patients, with 30% of breast cancer cases in the VA being Black compared to 12% in SEER.

CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS

Veterans diagnosed with breast and gynecologic cancers exhibit unique demographic characteristics compared to the general population. They tend to be younger and have a higher representation of Black patients. The incidence of male breast cancer is notably higher among Veterans. As the prevalence of these cancer types continue to rise among Veterans, it is vital for oncologists to be aware of and adequately address the unique health needs of this population. These findings emphasize the importance of tailored strategies and programs to provide optimal care for Veterans with breast and gynecologic cancers.

BACKGROUND

The Breast and Gynecologic System of Excellence (BGSOE) program has developed a workflow support tool using health information technology to assist clinicians, coordinators and stakeholders in identifying, tracking and supporting Veterans with breast and gynecological cancers. This tool was designed and implemented through a novel process that involved clarifying program aims, defining workflows in process delivery diagrams, and identifying data, analytic products, and user needs. To determine the optimal tool for the program, a comparative usability evaluation was conducted, comparing the new workflow support tool with a previous tool that shared identical aims but utilized a different approach.

METHODS

Usability evaluation employed the System Usability Scale (SUS) and measured acceptance using modified items from a validated instrument used in a national survey of electronic health records. Task efficiency was evaluated based on time taken and the number of clicks required to complete tasks.

RESULTS

Eight healthcare professionals with experience in the BGSOE program or similar programs in the VA participated in the usability evaluation. This group comprised physicians (38%), clinical pharmacist (25%), health care coordinators (25%), and registered nurse (12%). The workflow support tool achieved an impressive SUS score of 89.06, with acceptance scores of 93% (positive statements) and 6% (negative statements), outperforming the standard tool, which scored score of 57.5 on the SUS and had acceptance scores of 53% (positive statements) and 50% (negative statements). In the comparative ranking, 100% of the users preferred the workflow support tool, citing its userfriendliness, intuitiveness, and ease of use. On average, users completed all tasks using the workflow support tool in 8 minutes with 31 clicks, while the standard tool required 18 minutes and 124 clicks.

CONCLUSIONS

The adoption of a workflow support tool in the design of health information technology interventions leads to improved usability, efficiency, and adoption. Based on the positive results from the usability evaluation, the BGSOE program has chosen to adopt the workflow support tool as its preferred health information technology solution.

BACKGROUND

The Breast and Gynecologic System of Excellence (BGSOE) program has developed a workflow support tool using health information technology to assist clinicians, coordinators and stakeholders in identifying, tracking and supporting Veterans with breast and gynecological cancers. This tool was designed and implemented through a novel process that involved clarifying program aims, defining workflows in process delivery diagrams, and identifying data, analytic products, and user needs. To determine the optimal tool for the program, a comparative usability evaluation was conducted, comparing the new workflow support tool with a previous tool that shared identical aims but utilized a different approach.

METHODS

Usability evaluation employed the System Usability Scale (SUS) and measured acceptance using modified items from a validated instrument used in a national survey of electronic health records. Task efficiency was evaluated based on time taken and the number of clicks required to complete tasks.

RESULTS

Eight healthcare professionals with experience in the BGSOE program or similar programs in the VA participated in the usability evaluation. This group comprised physicians (38%), clinical pharmacist (25%), health care coordinators (25%), and registered nurse (12%). The workflow support tool achieved an impressive SUS score of 89.06, with acceptance scores of 93% (positive statements) and 6% (negative statements), outperforming the standard tool, which scored score of 57.5 on the SUS and had acceptance scores of 53% (positive statements) and 50% (negative statements). In the comparative ranking, 100% of the users preferred the workflow support tool, citing its userfriendliness, intuitiveness, and ease of use. On average, users completed all tasks using the workflow support tool in 8 minutes with 31 clicks, while the standard tool required 18 minutes and 124 clicks.

CONCLUSIONS

The adoption of a workflow support tool in the design of health information technology interventions leads to improved usability, efficiency, and adoption. Based on the positive results from the usability evaluation, the BGSOE program has chosen to adopt the workflow support tool as its preferred health information technology solution.

BACKGROUND

The Breast and Gynecologic System of Excellence (BGSOE) program has developed a workflow support tool using health information technology to assist clinicians, coordinators and stakeholders in identifying, tracking and supporting Veterans with breast and gynecological cancers. This tool was designed and implemented through a novel process that involved clarifying program aims, defining workflows in process delivery diagrams, and identifying data, analytic products, and user needs. To determine the optimal tool for the program, a comparative usability evaluation was conducted, comparing the new workflow support tool with a previous tool that shared identical aims but utilized a different approach.

METHODS

Usability evaluation employed the System Usability Scale (SUS) and measured acceptance using modified items from a validated instrument used in a national survey of electronic health records. Task efficiency was evaluated based on time taken and the number of clicks required to complete tasks.

RESULTS

Eight healthcare professionals with experience in the BGSOE program or similar programs in the VA participated in the usability evaluation. This group comprised physicians (38%), clinical pharmacist (25%), health care coordinators (25%), and registered nurse (12%). The workflow support tool achieved an impressive SUS score of 89.06, with acceptance scores of 93% (positive statements) and 6% (negative statements), outperforming the standard tool, which scored score of 57.5 on the SUS and had acceptance scores of 53% (positive statements) and 50% (negative statements). In the comparative ranking, 100% of the users preferred the workflow support tool, citing its userfriendliness, intuitiveness, and ease of use. On average, users completed all tasks using the workflow support tool in 8 minutes with 31 clicks, while the standard tool required 18 minutes and 124 clicks.

CONCLUSIONS

The adoption of a workflow support tool in the design of health information technology interventions leads to improved usability, efficiency, and adoption. Based on the positive results from the usability evaluation, the BGSOE program has chosen to adopt the workflow support tool as its preferred health information technology solution.

With the advent of artificial intelligence (AI), the era of double reading of mammograms is likely coming to a close, according to Liane Philpotts, MD, a radiology and biomedical imaging professor at Yale University in New Haven, Conn.

The reason is because AI is proving to be as good as humans in interpreting mammograms, at least in the research setting.

In one of the latest reports, published online in Radiology, British investigators found that the performance of a commercially available AI system (INSIGHT MMG version 1.1.7.1 – Lunit) was essentially equivalent to over 500 specialized readers. The results are in line with other recent AI studies.

Double reading – having mammograms read by two clinicians to increase cancer detection rates – is common in the United Kingdom and elsewhere in Europe.

The British team compared the performance of 552 readers with Lunit’s AI program on the Personal Performance in Mammographic Screening exam, a quality assurance test which mammogram readers in the United Kingdom are required to take twice a year. Readers assign a malignancy score to 60 challenging cases, a mix of normal breasts and breasts with benign and cancerous lesions. The study included two test sessions for a total of 120 breast screenings.

Fifty-seven percent of the readers in the study were board-certified radiologists, 37% were radiographers, and 6% were breast clinicians. Each read at least 5,000 mammograms a year.

There was no difference in overall performance between the AI program and the human readers (AUC 0.93 vs. 0.88, P = .15).

Commenting in an editorial published with the investigation, Dr. Philpotts said the results “suggest that AI could confidently act as a second reader to decrease workloads.”

As for the United States, where double reading is generally not done, she pointed out that “many U.S. radiologists interpreting mammograms are nonspecialized and do not read high volumes of mammograms. Thus, the AI system evaluated in the study “could be used as a supplemental tool to aid the performance of readers in the United States or in other countries where screening programs use a single reading.”

There was also no difference in sensitivity between AI and human readers (84% vs. 90%, P = .34), but the AI algorithm had a higher specificity (89% vs. 76%, P = .003).

Using AI recall scores that matched the average human reader performance (90% sensitivity, 76% specificity), there was no difference with AI in regard to sensitivity (91%, P = .73) or specificity (77%, P = .85), but the investigators noted the power of the analysis was limited.

Overall, “diagnostic performance of AI was comparable with that of the average human reader.” It seems “increasingly likely that AI will eventually play a part in the interpretation of screening mammograms,” said investigators led by Yan Chen, PhD, of the Nottingham Breast Institute in England.

“That the AI system was able to match the performance of the average reader in this specialized group of mammogram readers indicates the robustness of this AI algorithm,” Dr. Philpotts said.

However, there are some caveats.

For one, the system was designed for 2D mammography, the current standard of care in the United Kingdom, while digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is replacing 2D mammography in the United States.

In the United States, “AI algorithms specific to DBT are necessary and will need to be reliable and reproducible to be embraced by radiologists,” Dr. Philpotts said.

Also in the United Kingdom, screening is performed at 3-year intervals in women aged 50-70 years old, which means that the study population was enriched for older women with less-dense breasts. Screening generally starts earlier in the United States and includes premenopausal women with denser breasts.

A recent study from Korea, where many women have dense breasts, found that 2D mammography and supplementary ultrasound outperformed AI for cancer detection.

“This underscores the challenges of finding cancers in dense breasts, which plague both radiologists and AI alike, and provides evidence that breast density is an important factor to consider when evaluating AI performance,” Dr. Philpotts said.

The work was funded by Lunit, the maker of the AI program used in the study. The investigators and Dr. Philpotts had no disclosures.

With the advent of artificial intelligence (AI), the era of double reading of mammograms is likely coming to a close, according to Liane Philpotts, MD, a radiology and biomedical imaging professor at Yale University in New Haven, Conn.

The reason is because AI is proving to be as good as humans in interpreting mammograms, at least in the research setting.

In one of the latest reports, published online in Radiology, British investigators found that the performance of a commercially available AI system (INSIGHT MMG version 1.1.7.1 – Lunit) was essentially equivalent to over 500 specialized readers. The results are in line with other recent AI studies.

Double reading – having mammograms read by two clinicians to increase cancer detection rates – is common in the United Kingdom and elsewhere in Europe.

The British team compared the performance of 552 readers with Lunit’s AI program on the Personal Performance in Mammographic Screening exam, a quality assurance test which mammogram readers in the United Kingdom are required to take twice a year. Readers assign a malignancy score to 60 challenging cases, a mix of normal breasts and breasts with benign and cancerous lesions. The study included two test sessions for a total of 120 breast screenings.

Fifty-seven percent of the readers in the study were board-certified radiologists, 37% were radiographers, and 6% were breast clinicians. Each read at least 5,000 mammograms a year.

There was no difference in overall performance between the AI program and the human readers (AUC 0.93 vs. 0.88, P = .15).

Commenting in an editorial published with the investigation, Dr. Philpotts said the results “suggest that AI could confidently act as a second reader to decrease workloads.”

As for the United States, where double reading is generally not done, she pointed out that “many U.S. radiologists interpreting mammograms are nonspecialized and do not read high volumes of mammograms. Thus, the AI system evaluated in the study “could be used as a supplemental tool to aid the performance of readers in the United States or in other countries where screening programs use a single reading.”

There was also no difference in sensitivity between AI and human readers (84% vs. 90%, P = .34), but the AI algorithm had a higher specificity (89% vs. 76%, P = .003).

Using AI recall scores that matched the average human reader performance (90% sensitivity, 76% specificity), there was no difference with AI in regard to sensitivity (91%, P = .73) or specificity (77%, P = .85), but the investigators noted the power of the analysis was limited.

Overall, “diagnostic performance of AI was comparable with that of the average human reader.” It seems “increasingly likely that AI will eventually play a part in the interpretation of screening mammograms,” said investigators led by Yan Chen, PhD, of the Nottingham Breast Institute in England.

“That the AI system was able to match the performance of the average reader in this specialized group of mammogram readers indicates the robustness of this AI algorithm,” Dr. Philpotts said.

However, there are some caveats.

For one, the system was designed for 2D mammography, the current standard of care in the United Kingdom, while digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is replacing 2D mammography in the United States.

In the United States, “AI algorithms specific to DBT are necessary and will need to be reliable and reproducible to be embraced by radiologists,” Dr. Philpotts said.

Also in the United Kingdom, screening is performed at 3-year intervals in women aged 50-70 years old, which means that the study population was enriched for older women with less-dense breasts. Screening generally starts earlier in the United States and includes premenopausal women with denser breasts.

A recent study from Korea, where many women have dense breasts, found that 2D mammography and supplementary ultrasound outperformed AI for cancer detection.

“This underscores the challenges of finding cancers in dense breasts, which plague both radiologists and AI alike, and provides evidence that breast density is an important factor to consider when evaluating AI performance,” Dr. Philpotts said.

The work was funded by Lunit, the maker of the AI program used in the study. The investigators and Dr. Philpotts had no disclosures.

With the advent of artificial intelligence (AI), the era of double reading of mammograms is likely coming to a close, according to Liane Philpotts, MD, a radiology and biomedical imaging professor at Yale University in New Haven, Conn.

The reason is because AI is proving to be as good as humans in interpreting mammograms, at least in the research setting.

In one of the latest reports, published online in Radiology, British investigators found that the performance of a commercially available AI system (INSIGHT MMG version 1.1.7.1 – Lunit) was essentially equivalent to over 500 specialized readers. The results are in line with other recent AI studies.

Double reading – having mammograms read by two clinicians to increase cancer detection rates – is common in the United Kingdom and elsewhere in Europe.

The British team compared the performance of 552 readers with Lunit’s AI program on the Personal Performance in Mammographic Screening exam, a quality assurance test which mammogram readers in the United Kingdom are required to take twice a year. Readers assign a malignancy score to 60 challenging cases, a mix of normal breasts and breasts with benign and cancerous lesions. The study included two test sessions for a total of 120 breast screenings.

Fifty-seven percent of the readers in the study were board-certified radiologists, 37% were radiographers, and 6% were breast clinicians. Each read at least 5,000 mammograms a year.

There was no difference in overall performance between the AI program and the human readers (AUC 0.93 vs. 0.88, P = .15).

Commenting in an editorial published with the investigation, Dr. Philpotts said the results “suggest that AI could confidently act as a second reader to decrease workloads.”

As for the United States, where double reading is generally not done, she pointed out that “many U.S. radiologists interpreting mammograms are nonspecialized and do not read high volumes of mammograms. Thus, the AI system evaluated in the study “could be used as a supplemental tool to aid the performance of readers in the United States or in other countries where screening programs use a single reading.”

There was also no difference in sensitivity between AI and human readers (84% vs. 90%, P = .34), but the AI algorithm had a higher specificity (89% vs. 76%, P = .003).

Using AI recall scores that matched the average human reader performance (90% sensitivity, 76% specificity), there was no difference with AI in regard to sensitivity (91%, P = .73) or specificity (77%, P = .85), but the investigators noted the power of the analysis was limited.

Overall, “diagnostic performance of AI was comparable with that of the average human reader.” It seems “increasingly likely that AI will eventually play a part in the interpretation of screening mammograms,” said investigators led by Yan Chen, PhD, of the Nottingham Breast Institute in England.

“That the AI system was able to match the performance of the average reader in this specialized group of mammogram readers indicates the robustness of this AI algorithm,” Dr. Philpotts said.

However, there are some caveats.

For one, the system was designed for 2D mammography, the current standard of care in the United Kingdom, while digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is replacing 2D mammography in the United States.

In the United States, “AI algorithms specific to DBT are necessary and will need to be reliable and reproducible to be embraced by radiologists,” Dr. Philpotts said.

Also in the United Kingdom, screening is performed at 3-year intervals in women aged 50-70 years old, which means that the study population was enriched for older women with less-dense breasts. Screening generally starts earlier in the United States and includes premenopausal women with denser breasts.

A recent study from Korea, where many women have dense breasts, found that 2D mammography and supplementary ultrasound outperformed AI for cancer detection.

“This underscores the challenges of finding cancers in dense breasts, which plague both radiologists and AI alike, and provides evidence that breast density is an important factor to consider when evaluating AI performance,” Dr. Philpotts said.

The work was funded by Lunit, the maker of the AI program used in the study. The investigators and Dr. Philpotts had no disclosures.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Today, I’m going to talk about the 2023 Food and Drug Administration regulation that requires breast density to be reported on all mammogram results nationwide, and for that report to go to both clinicians and patients. Previously this was the rule in some states, but not in others. This is important because 40%-50% of women have dense breasts. I’m going to discuss what that means for you, and for our patients.

First I’ll review what breast density is, and how it is categorized and reported, and then why it’s important and what to do with the results.

Breast density describes the appearance of the breast on mammography. Appearance varies on the basis of breast tissue composition, with fibroglandular tissue being more dense than fatty tissue. Breast density is important because it relates to both the risk for cancer and the ability of mammography to detect cancer.

Breast density is defined and classified according to the American College of Radiology’s BI-RADS four-category scale. Categories 1 and 2 refer to breast tissue that is not dense, accounting for about 50% of the population. Categories 3 and 4 describe heterogeneously dense and extremely dense breast tissue, which occur in approximately 40% and 50% of women, respectively. When speaking about dense breast tissue readings on mammography, we are referring to categories 3 and 4.

Women with dense breast tissue have an increased risk of developing breast cancer and are less likely to have early breast cancer detected on mammography.

Let’s go over the details by category:

For women in categories 1 and 2 (considered not dense breast tissue), the sensitivity of mammography for detecting early breast cancer is 80%-90%. In categories 3 and 4, the sensitivity of mammography drops to 60%-70%.

Compared with women with average breast density, the risk of developing breast cancer is 20% higher in women with BI-RADS category 3 breasts, and more than twice as high (relative risk, 2.1) in those with BI-RADS category 4 breasts. Thus, the risk of developing breast cancer is higher, but the sensitivity of the test is lower.

Neil Skolnik, MD, is a professor, department of family medicine, at Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director, department of family medicine, Abington (Pennsylvania) Jefferson Health.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Today, I’m going to talk about the 2023 Food and Drug Administration regulation that requires breast density to be reported on all mammogram results nationwide, and for that report to go to both clinicians and patients. Previously this was the rule in some states, but not in others. This is important because 40%-50% of women have dense breasts. I’m going to discuss what that means for you, and for our patients.

First I’ll review what breast density is, and how it is categorized and reported, and then why it’s important and what to do with the results.

Breast density describes the appearance of the breast on mammography. Appearance varies on the basis of breast tissue composition, with fibroglandular tissue being more dense than fatty tissue. Breast density is important because it relates to both the risk for cancer and the ability of mammography to detect cancer.

Breast density is defined and classified according to the American College of Radiology’s BI-RADS four-category scale. Categories 1 and 2 refer to breast tissue that is not dense, accounting for about 50% of the population. Categories 3 and 4 describe heterogeneously dense and extremely dense breast tissue, which occur in approximately 40% and 50% of women, respectively. When speaking about dense breast tissue readings on mammography, we are referring to categories 3 and 4.

Women with dense breast tissue have an increased risk of developing breast cancer and are less likely to have early breast cancer detected on mammography.

Let’s go over the details by category:

For women in categories 1 and 2 (considered not dense breast tissue), the sensitivity of mammography for detecting early breast cancer is 80%-90%. In categories 3 and 4, the sensitivity of mammography drops to 60%-70%.

Compared with women with average breast density, the risk of developing breast cancer is 20% higher in women with BI-RADS category 3 breasts, and more than twice as high (relative risk, 2.1) in those with BI-RADS category 4 breasts. Thus, the risk of developing breast cancer is higher, but the sensitivity of the test is lower.

Neil Skolnik, MD, is a professor, department of family medicine, at Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director, department of family medicine, Abington (Pennsylvania) Jefferson Health.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Today, I’m going to talk about the 2023 Food and Drug Administration regulation that requires breast density to be reported on all mammogram results nationwide, and for that report to go to both clinicians and patients. Previously this was the rule in some states, but not in others. This is important because 40%-50% of women have dense breasts. I’m going to discuss what that means for you, and for our patients.

First I’ll review what breast density is, and how it is categorized and reported, and then why it’s important and what to do with the results.

Breast density describes the appearance of the breast on mammography. Appearance varies on the basis of breast tissue composition, with fibroglandular tissue being more dense than fatty tissue. Breast density is important because it relates to both the risk for cancer and the ability of mammography to detect cancer.

Breast density is defined and classified according to the American College of Radiology’s BI-RADS four-category scale. Categories 1 and 2 refer to breast tissue that is not dense, accounting for about 50% of the population. Categories 3 and 4 describe heterogeneously dense and extremely dense breast tissue, which occur in approximately 40% and 50% of women, respectively. When speaking about dense breast tissue readings on mammography, we are referring to categories 3 and 4.

Women with dense breast tissue have an increased risk of developing breast cancer and are less likely to have early breast cancer detected on mammography.

Let’s go over the details by category:

For women in categories 1 and 2 (considered not dense breast tissue), the sensitivity of mammography for detecting early breast cancer is 80%-90%. In categories 3 and 4, the sensitivity of mammography drops to 60%-70%.

Compared with women with average breast density, the risk of developing breast cancer is 20% higher in women with BI-RADS category 3 breasts, and more than twice as high (relative risk, 2.1) in those with BI-RADS category 4 breasts. Thus, the risk of developing breast cancer is higher, but the sensitivity of the test is lower.

Neil Skolnik, MD, is a professor, department of family medicine, at Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director, department of family medicine, Abington (Pennsylvania) Jefferson Health.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.