Background

Screening mammography has lower sensitivity and specificity in women with dense breasts, who experience higher breast cancer risk.

Purpose

To perform a systematic review of reproducibility of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) density categorization and test performance and clinical outcomes of supplemental screening with breast ultrasonography, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in women with dense breasts and negative mammography results.

Data sources

MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane database from January 2000 to July 2015.

Study selection

Studies reporting BI-RADS density reproducibility or supplemental screening results for women with dense breasts.

Data extraction

Quality assessment and abstraction of 24 studies from 7 countries; 6 studies were good-quality.

Data synthesis

Three good-quality studies reported reproducibility of BI-RADS density; 13% to 19% of women were recategorized between "dense" and "nondense" at subsequent screening. Two good-quality studies reported that sensitivity of ultrasonography for women with negative mammography results ranged from 80% to 83%; specificity, from 86% to 94%; and positive predictive value (PPV), from 3% to 8%. The sensitivity of MRI ranged from 75% to 100%; specificity, from 78% to 94%; and PPV, from 3% to 33% (3 studies). Rates of additional cancer detection with ultrasonography were 4.4 per 1000 examinations (89% to 93% invasive); recall rates were 14%. Use of MRI detected 3.5 to 28.6 additional cancer cases per 1000 examinations (34% to 86% invasive); recall rates were 12% to 24%. Rates of cancer detection with DBT increased by 1.4 to 2.5 per 1000 examinations compared with mammography alone (3 studies). Recall rates ranged from 7% to 11%, compared with 7% to 17% with mammography alone. No studies examined breast cancer outcomes.

Limitations

Good-quality evidence was sparse. Studies were small and CIs were wide. Definitions of recall were absent or inconsistent.

Conclusion

Density ratings may be recategorized on serial screening mammography. Supplemental screening of women with dense breasts finds additional breast cancer but increases false-positive results. Use of DBT may reduce recall rates. Effects of supplemental screening on breast cancer outcomes remain unclear.

Primary funding source

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Objective

Molecular profiling is developing to inform treatment in endometrial cancer. Using real world evidence, we sought to evaluate frontline immune checkpoint inhibitor vs chemotherapy effectiveness in advanced endometrial cancer, stratified by Tumor Mutational Burden (TMB) ≥10 mut/MB and microsatellite instability (MSI).

Methods

Patients with advanced endometrial cancer in the US-based de-identified Flatiron Health-Foundation Medicine Clinico-Genomic Database were included. Data originated from patients treated between January 2011- March 2022 at 280 US clinics. Next-generation sequencing assays were performed via FoundationOne or FoundationOneCDx. Longitudinal clinical data were derived from electronic health records. Immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment included pembrolizumab, dostarlimab, and nivolumab monotherapies. Time to next treatment, time to treatment discontinuation, and overall survival were assessed with the log-rank test and Cox proportional hazard models with adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) for known prognostic factors. We used the Likelihood ratio test to compare biomarker performance.

Results

A total of 343 patients received chemotherapy and 28 received immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy as frontline treatment. Patients who received monotherapy were more likely to be stage III at diagnosis (immune checkpoint inhibitor: 54.6% vs chemotherapy: 15.0%; p<0.001) and more likely to test MSI-high via next-generation sequencing (immune checkpoint inhibitor: 53.6% vs chemotherapy: 19.2%; p<0.001). In MSI-high cancers, single-agent immune checkpoint inhibitor had a more favorable time to next treatment (aHR: 0.18, p=0.001) and overall survival (aHR 0.29, p=0.045). Additional analyses on 70 unique tumor specimens revealed mismatch repair deficiency (dMMR) via immunohistochemistry and MSI-high via next-generation sequencing concordance (91%), with nominal improvement of MSI over dMMR to predict time to treatment discontinuation (p=0.030), time to next treatment (p=0.032), and overall survival (p=0.22). MSI status was concordant with tumor mutational burden ≥10 in 94.3% of cases.

Conclusion

Immune checkpoint inhibitors may have improved efficacy over chemotherapy in frontline treatment for advanced endometrial cancer defined by MSI-high using next-generation sequencing as a nominally better predictor of outcomes than dMMR with immunohistochemistry. This provides the biologic rationale of active phase III trials.