Try a new search

Format these results:

Searched for:

person:leec36

in-biosketch:true

Total Results:

56


Screening mammographic performance by race and age in the National Mammography Database: 29,479,665 screening mammograms from 13,181,241 women

Lee, Cindy S; Goldman, Lenka; Grimm, Lars J; Liu, Ivy Xinyue; Simanowith, Michael; Rosenberg, Robert; Zuley, Margarita; Moy, Linda
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:There are insufficient large-scale studies comparing the performance of screening mammography in women of different races. This study aims to compare the screening performance metrics across racial and age groups in the National Mammography Database (NMD). METHODS:). RESULTS:. CONCLUSIONS:with advancing age. African American women have poorer outcomes from screening mammography (higher RR and lower CDR), compared to White and all women in the NMD. Racial disparity can be partly explained by higher rate of African American women lost to follow up.
PMID: 37897646
ISSN: 1573-7217
CID: 5624292

Breast Cancer Screening for Women at Higher-Than-Average Risk: Updated Recommendations From the ACR

Monticciolo, Debra L; Newell, Mary S; Moy, Linda; Lee, Cindy S; Destounis, Stamatia V
Early detection decreases breast cancer death. The ACR recommends annual screening beginning at age 40 for women of average risk and earlier and/or more intensive screening for women at higher-than-average risk. For most women at higher-than-average risk, the supplemental screening method of choice is breast MRI. Women with genetics-based increased risk, those with a calculated lifetime risk of 20% or more, and those exposed to chest radiation at young ages are recommended to undergo MRI surveillance starting at ages 25 to 30 and annual mammography (with a variable starting age between 25 and 40, depending on the type of risk). Mutation carriers can delay mammographic screening until age 40 if annual screening breast MRI is performed as recommended. Women diagnosed with breast cancer before age 50 or with personal histories of breast cancer and dense breasts should undergo annual supplemental breast MRI. Others with personal histories, and those with atypia at biopsy, should strongly consider MRI screening, especially if other risk factors are present. For women with dense breasts who desire supplemental screening, breast MRI is recommended. For those who qualify for but cannot undergo breast MRI, contrast-enhanced mammography or ultrasound could be considered. All women should undergo risk assessment by age 25, especially Black women and women of Ashkenazi Jewish heritage, so that those at higher-than-average risk can be identified and appropriate screening initiated.
PMID: 37150275
ISSN: 1558-349x
CID: 5544422

Women 75 Years Old or Older: To Screen or Not to Screen?

Lee, Cindy S; Lewin, Alana; Reig, Beatriu; Heacock, Laura; Gao, Yiming; Heller, Samantha; Moy, Linda
Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women, with the incidence rising substantially with age. Older women are a vulnerable population at increased risk of developing and dying from breast cancer. However, women aged 75 years and older were excluded from all randomized controlled screening trials, so the best available data regarding screening benefits and risks in this age group are from observational studies and modeling predictions. Benefits of screening in older women are the same as those in younger women: early detection of smaller lower-stage cancers, resulting in less invasive treatment and lower morbidity and mortality. Mammography performs significantly better in older women with higher sensitivity, specificity, cancer detection rate, and positive predictive values, accompanied by lower recall rates and false positives. The overdiagnosis rate is low, with benefits outweighing risks until age 90 years. Although there are conflicting national and international guidelines about whether to continue screening mammography in women beyond age 74 years, clinicians can use shared decision making to help women make decisions about screening and fully engage them in the screening process. For women aged 75 years and older in good health, continuing annual screening mammography will save the most lives. An informed discussion of the benefits and risks of screening mammography in older women needs to include each woman's individual values, overall health status, and comorbidities. This article will review the benefits, risks, and controversies surrounding screening mammography in women 75 years old and older and compare the current recommendations for screening this population from national and international professional organizations. ©RSNA, 2023 Quiz questions for this article are available through the Online Learning Center.
PMID: 37053102
ISSN: 1527-1323
CID: 5464252

New Screening Performance Metrics for Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in U.S. Community Practice from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium [Comment]

Lee, Cindy S; Moy, Linda
PMID: 37039694
ISSN: 1527-1315
CID: 5502772

Screening mammographic performance by race and age in the National Mammography Database: 29,479,665 screening mammograms from 13,181,241 women

Lee, Cindy S.; Goldman, Lenka; Grimm, Lars J.; Liu, Ivy Xinyue; Simanowith, Michael; Rosenberg, Robert; Zuley, Margarita; Moy, Linda
Purpose: There are insufficient large-scale studies comparing the performance of screening mammography in women of different races. This study aims to compare the screening performance metrics across racial and age groups in the National Mammography Database (NMD). Methods: All screening mammograms performed between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2021, in women aged 30"“100 years from 746 mammography facilities in 46 U.S. states in the NMD were included. Patients were stratified by 10-year age intervals and 5 racial groups (African American, American Indian, Asian, White, unknown). Incidence of risk factors (breast density, personal history, family history of breast cancer, age), and time since prior exams were compared. Five screening mammography metrics were calculated: recall rate (RR), cancer detection rate (CDR), positive predictive values for recalls (PPV1), biopsy recommended (PPV2) and biopsy performed (PPV3). Results: 29,479,655 screening mammograms performed in 13,181,241 women between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2021, from the NMD were analyzed. The overall mean performance metrics were RR 10.00% (95% CI 9.99"“10.02), CDR 4.18/1000 (4.16"“4.21), PPV1 4.18% (4.16"“4.20), PPV2 25.84% (25.72"“25.97), PPV3 25.78% (25.66"“25.91). With advancing age, RR significantly decreases, while CDR, PPV1, PPV2, and PPV3 significantly increase. Incidence of personal/family history of breast cancer, breast density, age, prior mammogram availability, and time since prior mammogram were mostly similar across all races. Compared to White women, African American women had significantly higher RR, but lower CDR, PPV1, PPV2 and PPV3. Conclusions: Benefits of screening mammography increase with age, including for women age > 70 and across all races. Screening mammography is effective; with lower RR and higher CDR, PPV2, and PPV3 with advancing age. African American women have poorer outcomes from screening mammography (higher RR and lower CDR), compared to White and all women in the NMD. Racial disparity can be partly explained by higher rate of African American women lost to follow up.
SCOPUS:85175070544
ISSN: 0167-6806
CID: 5616672

Lessons Learned from the Randomized Controlled TOmosynthesis plus SYnthesized MAmmography (TOSYMA) Trial [Comment]

Lee, Cindy S; Moy, Linda
PMID: 36194117
ISSN: 1527-1315
CID: 5361692

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Breast Imaging: An Analysis of the National Mammography Database

Grimm, Lars J; Lee, Cindy; Rosenberg, Robert D; Burleson, Judy; Simanowith, Michael; Fruscello, Tom; Pelzl, Casey E; Friedewald, Sarah M; Moy, Linda; Zuley, Margarita L
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to quantify the initial decline and subsequent rebound in breast cancer screening metrics throughout the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS:Screening and diagnostic mammographic examinations, biopsies performed, and cancer diagnoses were extracted from the ACR National Mammography Database from March 1, 2019, through May 31, 2021. Patient (race and age) and facility (regional location, community type, and facility type) demographics were collected. Three time periods were used for analysis: pre-COVID-19 (March 1, 2019, to May 31, 2019), peak COVID-19 (March 1, 2020, to May 31, 2020), and COVID-19 recovery (March 1, 2021, to May 31, 2021). Analysis was performed at the facility level and overall between time periods. RESULTS:In total, 5,633,783 screening mammographic studies, 1,282,374 diagnostic mammographic studies, 231,390 biopsies, and 69,657 cancer diagnoses were analyzed. All peak COVID-19 metrics were less than pre-COVID-19 volumes: 36.3% of pre-COVID-19 for screening mammography, 57.9% for diagnostic mammography, 47.3% for biopsies, and 48.7% for cancer diagnoses. There was some rebound during COVID-19 recovery as a percentage of pre-COVID-19 volumes: 85.3% of pre-COVID-19 for screening mammography, 97.8% for diagnostic mammography, 91.5% for biopsies, and 92.0% for cancer diagnoses. Across various metrics, there was a disproportionate negative impact on older women, Asian women, facilities in the Northeast, and facilities affiliated with academic medical centers. CONCLUSIONS:COVID-19 had the greatest impact on screening mammography volumes, which have not returned to pre-COVID-19 levels. Cancer diagnoses declined significantly in the acute phase and have not fully rebounded, emphasizing the need to increase outreach efforts directed at specific patient population and facility types.
PMID: 35690079
ISSN: 1558-349x
CID: 5248612

Ultrafast Breast MRI to Predict Pathologic Response after Neoadjuvant Therapy [Comment]

Lee, Cindy S; Moy, Linda
PMID: 35880985
ISSN: 1527-1315
CID: 5276332

Utilization and Cancer Yield of Probably Benign Assessment Category in the National Mammography Database: 2009 to 2018

Elezaby, Mai A; Mao, Lu; Burnside, Elizabeth S; Zuley, Margarita L; Berg, Wendie A; Bhargavan-Chatfield, Mythreyi; Lee, Cindy S
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Data on utilization rate and cancer yield of BI-RADS® category 3 in routine clinical practice in diagnostic mammography are sparse. The aim of this study was to determine utilization rate and cancer yield of BI-RADS 3 in diagnostic mammography in the ACR National Mammography Database (NMD). METHODS:Retrospective analysis of NMD mammograms from January 1, 2009, to June 30, 2018, was performed. BI-RADS 3 utilization rate in diagnostic setting was calculated and stratified by patient, facility, and examination-level variables. Patient-level cancer yield was calculated among women with BI-RADS 3 assessment and adequate follow-up (imaging follow-up ≥24 months or biopsy). Logistic regression was performed to assess the odds of utilization of BI-RADS 3, with respect to facility, examination, and patient variables, and the odds of malignancy among patients with probably benign findings. Chi-square and t tests were used to determine significance (P < .05). RESULTS:Data from 19,443,866 mammograms from 500 NMD facilities across 31 states were analyzed, of which 3,039,952 were diagnostic mammograms. Utilization rate of BI-RADS 3 was 15.5% (470,155 of 3,039,952) in the diagnostic setting. There was a statistically significant difference in BI-RADS 3 utilization rate across all collected variables (P < .001). Patient-level cancer yield at 2-year follow-up was 0.91% (2,009 of 220,672; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87%-0.95%) in the diagnostic setting. Patient and examination variables associated with significantly higher likelihood of malignancy included calcifications (odds ratio, 4.27; 95% CI, 2.43-7.51), patient age > 70 years (odds ratio, 3.77; 95% CI, 2.49-5.7), and presence of prior comparisons (odds ratio, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.07-1.42). CONCLUSIONS:In the NMD, BI-RADS 3 assessment was common in diagnostic mammography (15.5%), with an overall cancer yield of 0.91%, less than the benchmark of 2%. Utilization trends in diagnostic mammography warrant further research for optimization of use.
PMID: 35358482
ISSN: 1558-349x
CID: 5201292

Artificial intelligence system reduces false-positive findings in the interpretation of breast ultrasound exams

Shen, Yiqiu; Shamout, Farah E; Oliver, Jamie R; Witowski, Jan; Kannan, Kawshik; Park, Jungkyu; Wu, Nan; Huddleston, Connor; Wolfson, Stacey; Millet, Alexandra; Ehrenpreis, Robin; Awal, Divya; Tyma, Cathy; Samreen, Naziya; Gao, Yiming; Chhor, Chloe; Gandhi, Stacey; Lee, Cindy; Kumari-Subaiya, Sheila; Leonard, Cindy; Mohammed, Reyhan; Moczulski, Christopher; Altabet, Jaime; Babb, James; Lewin, Alana; Reig, Beatriu; Moy, Linda; Heacock, Laura; Geras, Krzysztof J
Though consistently shown to detect mammographically occult cancers, breast ultrasound has been noted to have high false-positive rates. In this work, we present an AI system that achieves radiologist-level accuracy in identifying breast cancer in ultrasound images. Developed on 288,767 exams, consisting of 5,442,907 B-mode and Color Doppler images, the AI achieves an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.976 on a test set consisting of 44,755 exams. In a retrospective reader study, the AI achieves a higher AUROC than the average of ten board-certified breast radiologists (AUROC: 0.962 AI, 0.924 ± 0.02 radiologists). With the help of the AI, radiologists decrease their false positive rates by 37.3% and reduce requested biopsies by 27.8%, while maintaining the same level of sensitivity. This highlights the potential of AI in improving the accuracy, consistency, and efficiency of breast ultrasound diagnosis.
PMCID:8463596
PMID: 34561440
ISSN: 2041-1723
CID: 5039442