BACKGROUND: Organized breast cancer screening (BCS) programs are effective measures among women aged 50-69 for preventing the sixth cause of death in Germany. Although the implementation of the national screening program started in 2005, participation rates have not yet reached EU standards. It is unclear which and how sociodemographic factors are related to BCS attendance. This scoping review aims to identify sociodemographic inequalities in BCS attendance among 50-69-year-old women following the implementation of the Organized Screening Program in Germany.
METHODS: Following PRISMA guidelines, we searched the Web of Science, Scopus, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL following the PCC (Population, Concept and Context) criteria. We included primary studies with a quantitative study design and reviews examining BCS attendance among women aged 50-69 with data from 2005 onwards in Germany. Harvest plots depicting effect size direction for the different identified sociodemographic inequalities and last two years or less BCS attendance and lifetime BCS attendance were developed.
RESULTS: We screened 476 titles and abstracts and 33 full texts. In total, 27 records were analysed, 14 were national reports, and 13 peer-reviewed articles. Eight sociodemographic variables were identified and summarised in harvest plots: age, education, income, migration status, type of district, employment status, partnership cohabitation and health insurance. Older women with lower incomes and migration backgrounds who live in rural areas and lack private insurance respond more favourably to BCS invitations. However, from a lifetime perspective, these associations only hold for migration background, are reversed for income and urban residency, and are complemented by partner cohabitation. Finally, women living in the former East German states of Saxony, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Saxony-Anhalt, and Thuringia, as well as in the former West German state of Lower Saxony, showed higher BCS attendance rates in the last two years.
CONCLUSIONS: High-quality research is needed to identify women at higher risk of not attending BCS in Germany to address the existing research\'s high heterogeneity, particularly since the overall attendance rate still falls below European standards.
BACKGROUND: https://osf.io/x79tq/ .

BACKGROUND: Concrete, data-driven guidelines for breast cancer screening among the transgender and gender diverse (TGD) population is lacking. The present study evaluates possible associations of gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT) on incidental breast pathology findings in trans-masculine patients to inform decision making about breast cancer screening.
METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients who had gender-affirming mastectomy or breast reduction at a single center from July 2019 to February 2024. A total of 865 patients met the inclusion criteria. Gender-affirming testosterone therapy and length of exposure were evaluated to seek differences in post-operative pathology findings.
RESULTS: The median age at the time of surgery was 27 years [interquartile range (IQR) 21-30]. Most participants identified as female to male (658, 75.6%). A significant portion of the participants (688, 79.2%) were undergoing testosterone therapy at the time of surgery, with the median duration of testosterone use prior to surgery being 14 months (IQR 4-29). High risk or malignant findings were noted in pathology results for 12 of 1730 breasts (0.7%). Ordered logistic regression found that duration of testosterone therapy was not associated with increasing severity of incidental breast pathology. Additionally, patients under 25 years of age were 70% less likely to have any incidental finding on pathological evaluation than older patients [odds ratio (OR) 0.3, p < 0.01, confidence interval (CI) 0.18-0.50].
CONCLUSIONS: The present study found that patients undergoing GAHT should not be screened for breast cancer with increased frequency compared with cis-gender women. Additionally, it may be appropriate for trans women under the age of 25 with normal breast cancer risk to forego pathological breast tissue examination.

Background and Objectives: Breast cancer is one of the most widespread cancers among the female population around the world and is curable if diagnosed in an early stage. Consequently, breast cancer screening imaging techniques have greatly evolved and adjusted over the last decades. Alongside mammography, sonoelastography became an important tool for breast cancer detection. However, sonoelastography still has its limitations, namely, there is still a high occurrence of false positive results in the BIRADS 4 category. The aim of our study is to identify potential false positive predictors and to ascertain the factors influencing the quality of strain ultrasound elastography for the evaluation of suspicious solid breast lesions categorized as BIRADS 4B, 4C, and 5. Materials and Methods: We conducted a retrospective study in a single private medical center in Timisoara between January 2017 and January 2022 analyzing 1625 solid breast lesions by the sonoelastography strain using a standardized BIRADS-US lexicon. Results: Our study showed that most sonoelastography factors linked to incorrect and overdiagnosis were due to a nodule dimension (OR = 1.02 per unit increase), posterior acoustic shadowing (OR = 12.26), reactive adenopathy (OR = 6.35), and an increased TES score (TES3 OR = 6.60; TES4 OR = 23.02; TES5 OR = 108.24). Regarding patient characteristics, age (OR = 1.09 per unit increase), BMI, (OR = 1.09 per unit increase), and breastfeeding history (OR = 3.00) were observed to increase the likelihood of false positive results. On the other hand, the nodules less likely to be part of the false positive group exhibited the following characteristics: a regular shape (OR = 0.27), homogenous consistency (OR = 0.42), and avascularity (OR = 0.22). Conclusions: Older age, high BMI, patients with a breastfeeding history, and those who exhibit the following specific nodule characteristics were most often linked to false positive results: large tumors with posterior acoustic shadowing and high elasticity scores, accompanied by reactive adenopathy. On the other hand, homogenous, avascular nodules with regular shapes were less likely to be misdiagnosed.

OBJECTIVE: We compared the performance of 2 breast cancer screening approaches, automated breast US (ABUS) with same-day mammography (ABUS/MG) and handheld US (HHUS) with same-day mammography (HHUS/MG), in women with dense breasts to better understand the relative usefulness of ABUS and HHUS in a real-world clinical setting.
METHODS: In this institutional review board-approved, retrospective observational study, we evaluated all ABUS/MG and HHUS/MG screening examinations performed at our institution from May 2013 to September 2021. BI-RADS categories, biopsy pathology results, and diagnostic test characteristics (eg, sensitivity, specificity) were compared between the 2 screening approaches using Fisher\'s exact test.
RESULTS: A total of 1120 women with dense breasts were included in this study, with 852 undergoing ABUS/MG and 268 undergoing HHUS/MG. The sensitivities of ABUS/MG and HHUS/MG were 100% (5/5) and 75.0% (3/4), respectively, which was not a statistically significant difference (P  = .444). The ABUS/MG approach demonstrated a slightly higher specificity (97.4% [825/847] vs 94.3% [249/264]; P = .028), higher accuracy (97.4% [830/852] vs 94.0% [252/268]; P = .011), and lower biopsy recommendation rate (3.2% [27/852] vs 6.7% [18/268]; P = .019) than the HHUS/MG approach in our patient population.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that ABUS/MG performs comparably with HHUS/MG as a breast cancer screening approach in women with dense breasts in a real-world clinical setting, with the ABUS/MG approach demonstrating a similar sensitivity and slightly higher specificity than the HHUS/MG approach. Additional variables, such as patient experience and physician time, may help determine which imaging approach to employ in specific clinical settings.

Hodgkin lymphoma survivors who received mantle radiation are at risk of developing secondary malignant neoplasms. There is no established recommended screening guideline for this population. We discuss the case of a patient with a history of Hodgkin lymphoma status post-mantle field radiation, thyroid cancer status post-thyroidectomy, and now breast cancer following mantle radiation. The risk of adverse effects from mantle field radiation is well documented and includes secondary cancers of the thyroid, breast, lung, and cardiovascular disease. Advances in technology have led to an international paradigm shift in the management of Hodgkin lymphoma to reduce the diameter and dose of radiation based on the patient\'s anatomy. However, there is no consensus regarding the optimal frequency or modality of breast cancer screening in patients with Hodgkin lymphoma status post-mantle radiation who are now in remission. We discuss screening methods for this population, which has a high risk of developing breast cancer, and emphasize the need for personalized medicine.

OBJECTIVE: Mammography and MRI screening typically occur in combination or in alternating sequence. We compared multimodality screening performance accounting for the relative timing of mammography and MRI and overlapping follow-up periods.
METHODS: We identified 8,260 screening mammograms performed 2005 to 2017 in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, paired with screening MRIs within ±90 days (combined screening) or 91 to 270 days (alternating screening). Performance for combined screening (cancer detection rate [CDR] per 1,000 examinations and sensitivity) was calculated with 1-year follow-up for each modality, and with a single follow-up period treating the two tests as a single test. Alternating screening performance was calculated with 1-year follow-up for each modality and also with follow-up ending at the next screen if within 1 year (truncated follow-up).
RESULTS: For 3,810 combined screening pairs, CDR per 1,000 screens was 6.8 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.6-10.0) for mammography and 12.3 (95% CI: 9.3-16.4) for MRI as separate tests compared with 13.1 (95% CI: 10.0-17.3) as a single combined test. Sensitivity of each test was 48.1% (35.0%-61.5%) for mammography and 79.7% (95% CI: 67.7%-88.0%) for MRI compared with 96.2% (95% CI: 85.9%-99.0%) for combined screening. For 4,450 alternating screening pairs, mammography CDR per 1,000 screens changed from 3.6 (95% CI: 2.2-5.9) to zero with truncated follow-up; sensitivity was incalculable (denominator = 0). MRI CDR per 1,000 screens changed from 12.1 (95% CI 9.3-15.8) to 11.7 (95% CI: 8.9-15.3) with truncated follow-up; sensitivity changed from 75.0% (95% CI 63.8%-83.6%) to 86.7% (95% CI 75.5%-93.2%).
CONCLUSIONS: Updating auditing approaches to account for combined and alternating screening sequencing and to address outcome attribution issues arising from overlapping follow-up periods can improve the accuracy of multimodality screening performance evaluation.

Cancer is characterized by increased metabolic activity and vascularity, leading to temperature changes in cancerous tissues compared to normal cells. This study focused on patients with abnormal mammogram findings or a clinical suspicion of breast cancer, exclusively those confirmed by biopsy. Utilizing an ultra-high sensitivity thermal camera and prone patient positioning, we measured surface temperatures integrated with an inverse modeling technique based on heat transfer principles to predict malignant breast lesions. Involving 25 breast tumors, our technique accurately predicted all tumors, with maximum errors below 5 mm in size and less than 1 cm in tumor location. Predictive efficacy was unaffected by tumor size, location, or breast density, with no aberrant predictions in the contralateral normal breast. Infrared temperature profiles and inverse modeling using both techniques successfully predicted breast cancer, highlighting its potential in breast cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: High mammographic density increases breast cancer risk and reduces mammographic sensitivity. We reviewed evidence on accuracy of supplemental MRI for women with dense breasts at average or increased risk.
METHODS: PubMed and Embase were searched 1995-2022. Articles were included if women received breast MRI following 2D or tomosynthesis mammography. Risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS-2. Analysis used independent studies from the articles. Fixed-effect meta-analytic summaries were estimated for predefined groups (PROSPERO: 230277).
RESULTS: Eighteen primary research articles (24 studies) were identified in women aged 19-87 years. Breast density was heterogeneously or extremely dense (BI-RADS C/D) in 15/18 articles and extremely dense (BI-RADS D) in 3/18 articles. Twelve of 18 articles reported on increased-risk populations. Following 21 440 negative mammographic examinations, 288/320 cancers were detected by MRI. Substantial variation was observed between studies in MRI cancer detection rate, partly associated with prevalent vs incident MRI exams (prevalent: 16.6/1000 exams, 12 studies; incident: 6.8/1000 exams, 7 studies). MRI had high sensitivity for mammographically occult cancer (20 studies with at least 1-year follow-up). In 5/18 articles with sufficient data to estimate relative MRI detection rate, approximately 2 in 3 cancers were detected by MRI (66.3%, 95% CI, 56.3%-75.5%) but not mammography. Positive predictive value was higher for more recent studies. Risk of bias was low in most studies.
CONCLUSIONS: Supplemental breast MRI following negative mammography in women with dense breasts has breast cancer detection rates of ~16.6/1000 at prevalent and ~6.8/1000 at incident MRI exams, considering both high and average risk settings.

UNASSIGNED: Test-sets are standardized assessments used to evaluate reader performance in breast screening. Understanding how test-set results affect real-world performance can help refine their use as a quality improvement tool. The aim of this study is to explore if mammographic test-set results could identify breast-screening readers who improved their cancer detection in association with test-set training.
UNASSIGNED: Test-set results of 41 participants were linked to their annual cancer detection rate change in two periods oriented around their first test-set participation year. Correlation tests and a multiple linear regression model investigated the relationship between each metric in the test-set results and the change in detection rates. Additionally, participants were divided based on their improvement status between the two periods, and Mann-Whitney U test was used to determine if the subgroups differed in their test-set metrics.
UNASSIGNED: Test-set records indicated multiple significant correlations with the change in breast cancer detection rate: a moderate positive correlation with sensitivity (0.688, p < 0.001), a moderate negative correlation with specificity (-0.528, p < 0.001), and a low to moderate positive correlation with lesion sensitivity (0.469, p = 0.002), and the number of years screen-reading mammograms (0.365, p = 0.02). In addition, the overall regression was statistically significant (F (2,38) = 18.456 p < 0.001), with an R² of 0.493 (adjusted R² = 0.466) based on sensitivity (F = 27.132, p < 0.001) and specificity (F = 9.78, p = 0.003). Subgrouping the cohort based on the change in cancer detection indicated that the improved group is significantly higher in sensitivity (p < 0.001) and lesion sensitivity (p = 0.02) but lower in specificity (p = 0.003).
UNASSIGNED: Sensitivity and specificity are the strongest test-set performance measures to predict the change in breast cancer detection in real-world breast screening settings following test-set participation.

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