Short-interval Follow-up Recommendations Research Articles

Diagnostic Mammography Performance across Racial and Ethnic Groups in a National Network of Community-Based Breast Imaging Facilities.

We evaluated differences in diagnostic mammography performance based on women's race/ethnicity. This cohort study included 267,868 diagnostic mammograms performed to evaluate screening mammogram findings at 98 facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium between 2005 and 2017. Mammogram assessments were recorded prospectively and breast cancers occurring within one year were ascertained. Performance statistics were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for each racial/ethnic group. Multivariable regression was used to control for personal characteristics and imaging facility. Among non-Hispanic White (70%), non-Hispanic Black (13%), Asian/Pacific Islander (10%), and Hispanic (7%) women, the invasive cancer detection rate (iCDR, per 1,000 mammograms) and positive predictive value (PPV2) were highest among non-Hispanic White women (iCDR, 35.8; 95% CI, 35.0-36.7; PPV2, 27.8; 95% CI, 27.3-28.3) and lowest among Hispanic women (iCDR, 22.3; 95% CI, 20.2-24.6; PPV2, 19.4; 95% CI, 18.0-20.9). Short interval follow-up recommendations were most common among non-Hispanic Black women [(31.0%; 95% CI, 30.6%-31.5%) vs. other groups, range, 16.6%-23.6%]. False-positive biopsy recommendations were most common among Asian/Pacific Islander women [per 1,000 mammograms: 169.2; 95% CI, 164.8-173.7) vs. other groups, range, 126.5-136.1]. Some differences were explained by adjusting for receipt of diagnostic ultrasound or MRI for iCDR and imaging facility for short-interval follow-up. Other differences changed little after adjustment. Diagnostic mammography performance varied across racial/ethnic groups. Addressing characteristics related to imaging facility and access, rather than personal characteristics, may help reduce some of these disparities. Diagnostic mammography performance studies should include racially and ethnically diverse populations to provide an accurate view of the population-level effects.

Cumulative Probability of False-Positive Results After 10 Years of Screening With Digital Breast Tomosynthesis vs Digital Mammography

Breast cancer screening with digital breast tomosynthesis may decrease false-positive results compared with digital mammography. To estimate the probability of receiving at least 1 false-positive result after 10 years of screening with digital breast tomosynthesis vs digital mammography in the US. An observational comparative effectiveness study with data collected prospectively for screening examinations was performed between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2018, at 126 radiology facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Analysis included 903 495 individuals aged 40 to 79 years. Data analysis was conducted from February 9 to September 7, 2021. Screening modality, screening interval, age, and Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System breast density. Cumulative risk of at least 1 false-positive recall for further imaging, short-interval follow-up recommendation, and biopsy recommendation after 10 years of annual or biennial screening with digital breast tomosynthesis vs digital mammography, accounting for competing risks of breast cancer diagnosis and death. In this study of 903 495 women, 2 969 055 nonbaseline screening examinations were performed with interpretation by 699 radiologists. Mean (SD) age of the women at the time of the screening examinations was 57.6 (9.9) years, and 58% of the examinations were in individuals younger than 60 years and 46% were performed in women with dense breasts. A total of 15% of examinations used tomosynthesis. For annual screening, the 10-year cumulative probability of at least 1 false-positive result was significantly lower with tomosynthesis vs digital mammography for all outcomes: 49.6% vs 56.3% (difference, -6.7; 95% CI, -7.4 to -6.1) for recall, 16.6% vs 17.8% (difference, -1.1; 95% CI, -1.7 to -0.6) for short-interval follow-up recommendation, and 11.2% vs 11.7% (difference, -0.5; 95% CI, -1.0 to -0.1) for biopsy recommendation. For biennial screening, the cumulative probability of a false-positive recall was significantly lower for tomosynthesis vs digital mammography (35.7% vs 38.1%; difference, -2.4; 95% CI, -3.4 to -1.5), but cumulative probabilities did not differ significantly by modality for short-interval follow-up recommendation (10.3% vs 10.5%; difference, -0.1; 95% CI, -0.7 to 0.5) or biopsy recommendation (6.6% vs 6.7%; difference, -0.1; 95% CI, -0.5 to 0.4). Decreases in cumulative probabilities of false-positive results with tomosynthesis vs digital mammography were largest for annual screening in women with nondense breasts (differences for recall, -6.5 to -12.8; short-interval follow-up, 0.1 to -5.2; and biopsy recommendation, -0.5 to -3.1). Regardless of modality, cumulative probabilities of false-positive results were substantially lower for biennial vs annual screening (overall recall, 35.7 to 38.1 vs 49.6 to 56.3; short-interval follow-up, 10.3 to 10.5 vs 16.6 to 17.8; and biopsy recommendation, 6.6 to 6.7 vs 11.2 to 11.7); older vs younger age groups (eg, among annual screening in women ages 70-79 vs 40-49, recall, 39.8 to 47.0 vs 60.8 to 68.0; short-interval follow-up, 13.3 to 14.2 vs 20.7 to 20.9; and biopsy recommendation, 9.1 to 9.3 vs 13.2 to 13.4); and women with entirely fatty vs extremely dense breasts (eg, among annual screening in women aged 50-59 years, recall, 29.1 to 36.3 vs 58.8 to 60.4; short-interval follow-up, 8.9 to 11.6 vs 19.5 to 19.8; and biopsy recommendation, 4.9 to 8.0 vs 15.1 to 15.3). In this comparative effectiveness study, 10-year cumulative probabilities of false-positive results were lower on digital breast tomosynthesis vs digital mammography. Biennial screening interval, older age, and nondense breasts were associated with larger reductions in false-positive probabilities than screening modality.

Compliance with Short-Interval Follow-up MRI after Benign Concordant MRI-guided Breast Biopsy.

To evaluate compliance with short-interval follow-up MRI after benign concordant MRI-guided breast biopsy. This institutional review board-approved retrospective study included all benign concordant MRI-guided biopsies performed between January 1, 2010, and May 1, 2018. The following was collected from the electronic medical record: patient and lesion characteristics, short-interval follow-up MRI recommendation, communication to referring physician, follow-up imaging, repeat biopsies, biopsy outcome, and patient insurance status. Compliance with recommendations was defined as follow-up MRI within 9 months of biopsy. Among 98 patients, there were 107 lesions with benign concordant MRI-guided biopsy results that met study criteria. After excluding 7 patients who underwent subsequent mastectomy, 50/91 (54.9%) patients were recommended short-interval follow-up MRI. Of these, 33/50 (66.0%) had a short-interval follow-up MRI. Direct communication of the short-interval follow-up recommendation was documented in the biopsy report for 4/50 (8%) patients. Subsequent MRI was available for 77/107 (72%) lesions at a median of 29 months following MRI-guided biopsy (range, 3-96 months). Subsequent mammography was available for 21/30 (70%) remaining lesions at a median of 47 months following MRI-guided biopsy (range, 23-88 months). There were two repeat biopsies, with one subsequent malignancy, resulting in a false-negative rate of 0.9% (1/107). When short-interval follow-up MRI was recommended following benign concordant MRI-guided breast biopsy, compliance was 66.0%. Lack of communication of the recommendation may at least partially explain the low compliance. The low false-negative rate (0.9%) suggests routine short-interval follow-up MRI may be unnecessary following benign concordant MRI-guided biopsy.

Strategies to Identify Women at High Risk of Advanced Breast Cancer During Routine Screening for Discussion of Supplemental Imaging

Federal legislation proposes requiring that screening mammography reports to practitioners and women incorporate breast density information and that women with dense breasts discuss supplemental imaging with their practitioner given their increased risk of interval breast cancer. Instead of discussing supplemental imaging with all women with dense breasts, it may be more efficient to identify women at high risk of advanced breast cancer who may benefit most from supplemental imaging. To identify women at high risk of advanced breast cancer to target woman-practitioner discussions about the need for supplemental imaging. This prospective cohort study assessed 638 856 women aged 40 to 74 years who had 1 693 163 screening digital mammograms taken at Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) imaging facilities from January 3, 2005, to December 31, 2014. Data analysis was performed from October 10, 2018, to March 20, 2019. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) breast density and BCSC 5-year breast cancer risk. Advanced breast cancer (stage IIB or higher) within 12 months of screening mammography; high advanced cancer rates (≥0.61 cases per 1000 mammograms) defined as the top 25th percentile of advanced cancer rates, and discussions per potential advanced cancer prevented. A total of 638 856 women (mean [SD] age, 56.5 [8.9] years) were included in the study. Women with dense breasts (heterogeneously or extremely dense) accounted for 47.0% of screened women and 60.0% of advanced cancers. Low advanced cancer rates (<0.61 per 1000 mammograms) occurred in 34.5% of screened women with dense breasts. High advanced breast cancer rates occurred in women with heterogeneously dense breasts and a 5-year risk of 2.5% or higher (6.0% of screened women) and those with extremely dense breasts and a 5-year risk of 1.0% or higher (6.5% of screened women). Density-risk subgroups at high advanced cancer risk comprised 12.5% of screened women and 27.1% of advanced cancers. Density-risk subgroups had the fewest supplemental imaging discussions per potential advanced cancer prevented compared with a strategy based on dense breasts (1097 vs 1866 discussions). Women with heterogeneously dense breasts and a 5-year risk less than 1.67% (21.7% of screened women) had high rates of false-positive short-interval follow-up recommendation without undergoing supplemental imaging. The findings suggest that breast density notification should be combined with breast cancer risk so women at highest risk for advanced cancer are targeted for supplemental imaging discussions and women at low risk are not. BI-RADS breast density combined with BCSC 5-year risk may offer a more efficient strategy for supplemental imaging discussions than targeting all women with dense breasts.

Frequency and Determinants of a Short-Interval Follow-up Recommendation After an Abnormal Screening Mammogram

PurposeAfter imaging assessment of an abnormal screening mammogram, a follow-up examination 6 months later is recommended to some women. Our aim was to identify which characteristics of lesions, women, and physicians are associated to such short-interval follow-up recommendation in the Quebec Breast Cancer Screening Program. MethodsBetween 1998 and 2008, 1,839,396 screening mammograms were performed and a total of 114,781 abnormal screens were assessed by imaging only. Multivariate analysis was done with multilevel Poisson regression models with robust variance and generalized linear mixed models. ResultsA short-interval follow-up was recommended in 26.7% of assessments with imaging only, representing 2.3% of all screens. Case-mix adjusted proportion of short-interval follow-up recommendations varied substantially across physicians (range: 4%-64%). Radiologists with high recall rates (≥15%) had a high proportion of short-interval follow-up recommendation (risk ratio: 1.82; 95% confidence interval: 1.35-2.45) compared to radiologists with low recall rates (<5%). The adjusted proportion of short-interval follow-up was high (22.8%) even when a previous mammogram was usually available. ConclusionsShort-interval follow-up recommendation at assessment is frequent in this Canadian screening program, even when a previous mammogram is available. Characteristics related to radiologists appear to be key determinants of short-interval follow-up recommendation, rather than characteristics of lesions or patient mix. Given that it can cause anxiety to women and adds pressure on the health system, it appears important to record and report short-interval follow-up and to identify ways to reduce its frequency. Short-interval follow-up recommendations should be considered when assessing the burden of mammography screening.

Optimal Policies for Reducing Unnecessary Follow-Up Mammography Exams in Breast Cancer Diagnosis

Mammography is the most effective screening tool for early diagnosis of breast cancer. Based on the mammography findings, radiologists need to choose from one of the following three alternatives: 1) take immediate diagnostic actions including prompt biopsy to confirm breast cancer; 2) recommend a follow-up mammogram; 3) recommend routine annual mammography. There are no validated structured guidelines based on a decision-analytical framework to aid radiologists in making such patient management decisions. Surprisingly, only 15-45% of the breast biopsies and less than 1% of short-interval follow-up recommendations are found to be malignant, resulting in unnecessary tests and patient-anxiety. We develop a finite-horizon discrete-time Markov decision process (MDP) model that may help radiologists make patient-management decisions to maximize a patient's total expected quality-adjusted life years. We use clinical data to find the policies recommended by the MDP model and also compare them to decisions made by radiologists at a large mammography practice. We also derive the structural properties of the MDP model, including sufficiency conditions that ensure the existence of a double control-limit type policy.

The impact of obesity on follow-up after an abnormal screening mammogram.

Effective breast cancer screening and early detection are crucial for obese women, who experience a higher incidence of the disease and present at later stages. We examined the association between body mass index (BMI) and timeliness of follow-up after 241,222 abnormal screening mammograms carried out on 201,470 women in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Each mammogram had one of three recommendations for follow-up: short-interval follow-up, immediate additional diagnostic imaging, and biopsy/surgical consultation. We used logistic regression to estimate the adjusted effect of BMI on any recorded follow-up within 270 days of the recommendation; linear regression was used to model the mean follow-up time among those with recorded follow-up. As compared with normal-weight women, higher BMI was associated with slightly increased odds of follow-up among women who received a recommendation for short-interval follow-up (ORs: 1.03-1.10; P = 0.04) or immediate additional imaging (ORs: 1.03-1.09; P = 0.01). No association was found for biopsy/surgical consultation recommendations (P = 0.90). Among those with recorded follow-up, higher BMI was associated with longer mean time to follow-up for both short-interval (3-10 days; P < 0.001) and additional imaging recommendations (2-3 days; P < 0.001) but not biopsy/surgical consultation (P = 0.06). Regardless of statistical significance, actual differences in days to follow-up across BMI groups were small and unlikely to be clinically significant. Once obese women access screening mammography, their follow-up after abnormal results is similar to that of normal-weight women. Efforts to improve early detection of breast cancer in obese women should focus elsewhere, such as improving participation in screening mammography.

Use of BI-RADS 3–Probably Benign Category in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial

To determine (a) how often the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category 3 was used in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN) Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST), either at the time of screening mammography or after work-up, (b) how often subjects actually returned for the recommended follow-up examination, and (c) the rate and stages of any malignancies subsequently found in subjects for whom short-term interval follow-up was recommended. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at all institutions where subjects were enrolled. All subjects participating in DMIST gave informed consent and the study was HIPAA-compliant. A total of 47,599 DMIST-eligible and evaluable subjects, all of whom consented to undergo both digital and screen-film mammography, were included in this analysis. Cases referred for short-term interval follow-up based on digital, screen-film, or both imaging examinations were determined. Compliance with the recommendations and the final outcome (malignancy diagnosis at biopsy or no malignancy confirmed through follow-up) of each evaluable case were determined. A total of 1114 of the 47,599 (2.34%) subjects had tumors assigned a BI-RADS 3 category and were recommended to undergo short-interval follow-up. In this study, 791 of 1114 (71%) of the subjects were compliant with the recommendation and returned for short-interval follow-up. Of the women who did not return for short-interval follow-up, 70% (226 of 323) did return for their next annual mammography. Among all subjects whose tumors were assigned a BI-RADS 3 category either at screening mammography or after additional work-up, nine of 1114 (0.81%) were found to have cancer. Of the nine biopsy-proved cancers, six were invasive cancers and three were ductal carcinoma in situ stage Tis-T1c. The invasive cancers were all less than 2 cm in size. In DMIST, radiologists used the BI-RADS 3 classification infrequently (2.3% of patients). Tumors assigned a BI-RADS 3 category had a low rate of malignancy. The relatively high rate of noncompliance with short-interval follow-up recommendations (323 of 1114, or 29%) supports prior recommendations that radiologists thoroughly evaluate lesions before placing them in this category.

Screening Breast MR Imaging: Comparison of Interpretation of Baseline and Annual Follow-up Studies

To determine whether baseline screening breast magnetic resonance (MR) imaging studies have a higher rate of follow-up or biopsy recommendation than do studies with prior MR images available for comparison. This was an institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant, retrospective study. Informed consent was waived. Reports from 650 consecutive screening breast MR imaging examinations performed in women between September 2007 and December 2008 were reviewed. All examinations were performed by using the same protocol, and images were interpreted by the same radiologists. Presence of comparison studies, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category, and biopsy results were recorded. Data were analyzed by using the χ(2) test, the two-sample test of proportions, and the Fisher exact test. Mean patient age was 51 years (range, 25-81 years). Of the baseline studies, findings in 31 of 307 (10.1%) were interpreted as BI-RADS category 3 and findings in 18 of 307 (5.9%) were interpreted as BI-RADS category 4 or 5. Of the examinations with findings classified as BI-RADS category 4 or 5, the results in two of 18 (11.1%) were positive for malignancy at biopsy. Of the examinations with prior MR images for comparison, findings in nine of 343 (2.6%) were interpreted as BI-RADS category 3 and findings in 16 of 343 (4.7%) were interpreted as BI-RADS category 4 or 5. Of the examinations with findings classified as BI-RADS category 4 or 5, the results in three of 16 (18.8%) were positive for malignancy at biopsy. The difference in the number of BI-RADS category 3 interpretations between the two groups was significant (P < .001), but there was no significant difference in BI-RADS category 4 or 5 interpretations or positive predictive values. Baseline screening MR imaging was associated with a higher likelihood of recommendation for short-interval follow-up than was MR imaging with prior images for comparison.

Estrogen Alone in Postmenopausal Women and Breast Cancer Detection by Means of Mammography and Breast Biopsy

As the influence of estrogen alone on breast cancer detection is not established, we examined this issue in the Women's Health Initiative trial, which randomly assigned 10,739 postmenopausal women with prior hysterectomy to conjugated equine estrogen (CEE; 0.625 mg/d) or placebo. Screening mammography and breast exams were performed at baseline and annually. Breast biopsies were based on clinical findings. Effects of CEE alone on breast cancer detection were determined by using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses of mammogram performance. After a 7.1-year mean follow-up, fewer invasive breast cancers were diagnosed in the CEE than in the placebo group, but the difference was not statistically significant. Use of CEE alone increased mammograms with short-interval follow-up recommendations (cumulative, 39.2% v 29.6.3%; P < .001) but not abnormal mammograms (ie, those suggestive of or highly suggestive of malignancy; cumulative, 7.3% v 7.0%; P = .41). Breast biopsies were more frequent in the CEE group (cumulative, 12.5% v 10.7%; P = .004) and less commonly diagnosed as cancer (8.9% v 15.8%, respectively, with positive biopsies; P = .04). Mammographic breast cancer detection in the CEE group was significantly compromised only in the early years of use. CEE alone use for 5 years results in approximately one in 11 and one in 50 women having otherwise avoidable mammograms with short-interval follow-up recommendations or breast biopsies, respectively. Although the breast biopsies on CEE were less commonly diagnosed as cancer, breast cancer detection was not substantially compromised. These findings differ from estrogen-plus-progestin use, for which significantly increased abnormal mammograms and a compromise in breast cancer detection are seen.

Recommendation for Short-Interval Follow-Up Examinations After a Probably Benign Assessment: Is Clinical Practice Consistent With BI-RADS Guidance?

American College of Radiology BI-RADS guidance suggests that women with a probably benign finding on mammography receive a management recommendation for short-interval follow-up; historically, radiologists in community practice have not consistently linked this assessment with short-interval follow-up. We evaluated predictors of discordance between probably benign assessments and short-interval follow-up recommendations. We linked data on 196 radiologists who completed a survey on demographic and practice patterns to 15,515 diagnostic mammograms they interpreted with probably benign assessments between 2001 and 2006. Patient characteristics were collected at the time of the mammography. Using logistic regression, we examined whether patient and radiologist characteristics were associated with the odds of short-interval follow-up recommendations (relative to a recommendation for normal follow-up, additional imaging evaluation, or biopsy or surgical consultation). Overall, 90.9% of mammograms with probably benign findings were recommended for short-interval follow-up; 4.3% were recommended for normal follow-up, 3.0% for additional imaging, and 1.8% for biopsy or surgical consultation. Women with probably benign findings were less likely to receive a short-interval follow-up recommendation if they had extremely dense breasts versus almost entirely fatty breasts (odds ratio [OR], 0.61; 95% CI, 0.39-0.96) or had a breast lump versus no symptoms (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.38-78). Radiologists were less likely to recommend short-interval follow-up if they had >/= 20 years of experience versus < 10 years of experience (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.36-0.90) but more likely if they practiced primarily at an academic medical center versus other institutions (OR, 2.66; 95% CI, 1.14-6.21). In contrast to older studies, the majority of probably benign assessments are now recommended for short-interval follow-up, but the probability of short-interval follow-up recommendations varies by patient and radiologist characteristics.

Recommendations for Additional Imaging in Radiology Reports: Radiologists' Self-Referral or Good Clinical Practice?

HomeRadiologyVol. 253, No. 2 PreviousNext Recommendations for Additional Imaging in Radiology Reports: Radiologists' Self-Referral or Good Clinical Practice?Ronald L. ArensonRonald L. ArensonAuthor Affiliations1From the Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, 505 Parnassus Ave, Room M-391, San Francisco, CA 94143-0628.Address correspondence to the author (e-mail: [email protected]).Ronald L. ArensonPublished Online:Nov 1 2009https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2532091216MoreSectionsFull textPDF ToolsImage ViewerAdd to favoritesCiteTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked In AbstractWhether recommendations for additional imaging in radiology reports are considered self-referral or good clinical practice depends on the appropriateness of both the original and recommended additional procedures, which can only be determined through good outcomes studies.© RSNA, 2009 References 1 Sistrom CL, Dreyer KJ, Dang PPet al.. Recommendations for additional imaging in radiology reports: multifactorial analysis of 5.9 million examinations. Radiology 2009;253(2):453–461. Link, Google Scholar2 Kerlikowske K, Smith-Bindman R, Abraham LAet al.. Breast cancer yield for screening mammographic examinations with recommendation for short-interval follow-up. Radiology 2005;234(3):684–692. Link, Google Scholar3 Orel S. Who should have breast magnetic resonance imaging evaluation? J Clin Oncol 2008;26(5):703–711. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar4 Khan KY, Xiong T, McCafferty Iet al.. Frequency and impact of extracolonic findings detected at computed tomographic colonography in a symptomatic population. Br J Surg 2007;94(3):355–361. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar5 Pickhardt PJ, Taylor AJ. Extracolonic findings identified in asymptomatic adults at screening CT colonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006;186(3):718–728. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar6 Yee J, Kumar NN, Godara Set al.. Extracolonic abnormalities discovered incidentally at CT colonography in a male population. Radiology 2005;236(2):519–526. Link, Google Scholar7 Sistrom CL, Dang PA, Weilburg JB, Dreyer KJ, Rosenthal DI, Thrall JH. Effect of computerized order entry with integrated decision support on the growth of outpatient procedure volumes: seven-year time series analysis. Radiology 2009;251(1):147–155. Link, Google Scholar8 Boonn WW, Langlotz CP. Radiologist use of and perceived need for patient data access. J Digit Imaging 2009;22(4):357–362. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar9 Levin DC, Rao VM. Turf wars in radiology: updated evidence on the relationship between self-referral and the overutilization of imaging. J Am Coll Radiol 2008;5(7):806–810. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar10 Levin DC, Rao VM. Turf wars in radiology: other causes of overutilization and what can be done about it. J Am Coll Radiol 2004;1(5):317–321. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar11 Levin DC, Rao VM, Parker L, Frangos AJ, Sunshine JH. Ownership or leasing of CT scanners by nonradiologist physicians: a rapidly growing trend that raises concern about self-referral. J Am Coll Radiol 2008;5(12):1206–1209. Crossref, Medline, Google ScholarArticle HistoryReceived July 7, 2009; revision requested July 22; revision received July 24; final version accepted July 24.Published in print: Nov 2009 FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited ByJournal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology, Vol. 64, No. 3Pediatric Radiology, Vol. 47, No. 13Journal of the American College of Radiology, Vol. 14, No. 5Journal of the American College of Radiology, Vol. 13, No. 9Emergency Radiology, Vol. 21, No. 4JMIR Medical Informatics, Vol. 2, No. 1JMIR Medical Informatics, Vol. 2, No. 1Clinical Radiology, Vol. 68, No. 2Journal of Nuclear Medicine, Vol. 54, No. 5Journal of the American College of Radiology, Vol. 8, No. 12Compliance with Fleischner Society Guidelines for Management of Lung Nodules: Lessons and Opportunities1Heber MacMahon, 10 March 2010 | Radiology, Vol. 255, No. 1Recommended Articles Overview of Noninterpretive Artificial Intelligence Models for Safety, Quality, Workflow, and Education Applications in Radiology PracticeRadiology: Artificial Intelligence2022Volume: 4Issue: 2Whole-Body Clinical Applications of Digital TomosynthesisRadioGraphics2016Volume: 36Issue: 3pp. 735-750Factors Affecting Interpretative Accuracy: How Can We Reduce Errors?Radiology2018Volume: 287Issue: 1pp. 213-214Electronic Health Record Closed-Loop Communication Program for Unexpected Nonemergent FindingsRadiology2021Volume: 301Issue: 1pp. 123-130Patient Exposure from Radiologic and Nuclear Medicine Procedures in the United States: Procedure Volume and Effective Dose for the Period 2006–2016Radiology2020Volume: 295Issue: 2pp. 418-427See More RSNA Education Exhibits A Cased-Based Health Equity Primer for Radiologists: Real Cases, Real Problems, Real SolutionsDigital Posters2020Introduction to Artificial Intelligence and Big Data Research in Chest RadiologyDigital Posters2019The Value of Adding Contrast Enhanced Spectral Mammography to the Diagnostic Breast Imaging Practice: How to Implement a Program and Examples of the Utility of CESM as a Problem Solving ToolDigital Posters2018 RSNA Case Collection Chagas diseaseRSNA Case Collection2021SclerodermaRSNA Case Collection2022Neonatal tuberous sclerosis RSNA Case Collection2020 Vol. 253, No. 2 Metrics Altmetric Score PDF download

Improving the Concordance of Mammography Assessment and Management Recommendations

To retrospectively compare the concordance of initial and final assessment categories for mammograms with management recommendations made before and after the final rules of the Mammography Quality Standards Act (MQSA) were in effect for screening and diagnostic mammography. The study included mammograms from 1996 to 2001 from the seven mammography registries of the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC). The authors defined the pre-MQSA period as January 1, 1996-April 27, 1999, and the post-MQSA period as April 28, 1999-December 31, 2001 (2470151 screening and 194199 diagnostic mammograms). Assessment was cross-classified according to management recommendation. Changes in concordance between assessment and recommendation were evaluated by year and by period (before and after MQSA) for computer-linked data and for all data by using Pearson chi(2) test to evaluate differences. Mantel-Haenszel chi(2) test was used to measure change in concordance over time. Each registry and the BCSC Statistical Coordinating Center had a Federal Certificate of Confidentiality and approval from each institution's review board for protection of human subjects to collect and send data to coordinating center and conduct research with these data. Active consent was required at only one site in this HIPAA-compliant study. Concordance increased significantly in the post-MQSA period for Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System categories 3-5 assessments at both screening and diagnostic mammography. The most substantial improvements were in the use of the management recommendation for "additional imaging," which decreased from 41% in 1996 to 15% in 2001 for screening mammograms with an initial assessment of category 4 (P < .001). Recommendation for short-interval follow-up in women with screening mammograms with a category 3 final assessment increased from 51% in 1996 to 76% in 2001 (P < .001). Concordance for diagnostic mammograms assigned category 0 improved from 65% in the pre-MQSA period to 81% in the post-MQSA period (P < .001). This analysis demonstrates that over a relatively short period of time, major improvement in radiology reporting has occurred.

4–20 Breast Cancer Yield for Screening Mammographic Examinations With Recommendation for Short-Interval Follow-up

4–20 Breast Cancer Yield for Screening Mammographic Examinations With Recommendation for Short-Interval Follow-up

Breast Cancer Yield for Screening Mammographic Examinations with Recommendation for Short-Interval Follow-up

To compare cancer yield for screening examinations with recommendation for short-interval follow-up after diagnostic imaging work-up versus after screening mammography only. From January 1996 to December 1999, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System assessments and recommendations were collected prospectively for 1,171,792 screening examinations in 758,015 women aged 40-89 years at seven mammography registries in Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Registries obtained waiver of signed consent or collected signed consent in accordance with institutional review boards at each location. Diagnosis of invasive cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ within 24 months of screening examination and tumor stage and size for invasive cancer were determined through linkage to pathology database or tumor registry. chi2 test was used to determine significant differences between groups. Overall, 5.2% of first and 1.7% of subsequent screens included recommendation for short-interval follow-up, which was similar to likelihood of recommendation for diagnostic evaluation (first screens, 4.6%; subsequent, 2.6%). Most recommendations for short-interval follow-up were based on screening mammography alone (86.2% of first screens, 77.5% of subsequent). Yield of cancer for screening examinations with probably benign finding (PBF) and recommendation for short-interval follow-up based on screening mammography alone tended to be lower than in those with PBF and recommendation for short-interval follow-up after additional work-up (first screens: 0.54% vs 0.96%, P=.10; subsequent: 1.50% vs 1.73%, P=.26). Proportion of stage II and higher disease tended to be higher for examinations with PBF and recommendation for short-interval follow-up based on screening mammography alone compared with those recommended for short-interval follow-up after additional work-up (first screens: 34.7% vs 24.4%, P=.43; subsequent: 27.5% vs 19.2%, P=.13). Many first screening examinations include recommendation for short-interval follow-up based on screening mammography alone. Cancer yield for these examinations is low and is lower than that with diagnostic work-up prior to short-interval follow-up recommendation. Absence of diagnostic work-up prior to short-interval follow-up recommendation may result in periodic surveillance of a high proportion of benign lesions.

Frequency and predictive value of a mammographic recommendation for short-interval follow-up.

A recommendation for short-interval follow-up of "probably benign finding" is associated with up to 11% of screening mammograms, but its predictive value for breast cancer is unclear. We examined the predictive values (i.e., the percentage of women with a diagnosis of breast cancer 2 years after a short-interval follow-up recommendation) and likelihood ratios (derived from the pretest and post-test odds of breast cancer in the Women's Health Initiative sample) for breast cancer that are associated with a recommendation for short-interval follow-up among postmenopausal women. We performed a longitudinal analysis of a prospective cohort of 68 126 postmenopausal women (aged 50-79 years) who were participating in clinical trials as part of the Women's Health Initiative at 40 centers across the United States. Eligible participants had screening mammograms at baseline and at least 2 years of follow-up that included a repeat mammography. Outcomes measured were breast cancer events at 1 and 2 years after baseline and the results of subsequent mammograms. All P values were two-sided. A total of 2927 (5%) of the 58 408 eligible women had baseline mammograms that included recommendations for short-interval follow-up. The incidence of breast cancer for women with a short-interval follow-up recommendation was 1.0% at 2 years after the baseline mammogram compared with breast cancer incidences of 0.6% and 0.5% for women whose baseline mammograms were described as "benign" and "negative," respectively. Across the 40 participating centers, the prevalence of short-interval follow-up recommendations among baseline mammograms varied from 1.2% to 9.8% (P<.001), even when the analysis was adjusted for key variables in regression models. Centers reporting higher frequencies of such recommendations did not have lower positive predictive values for breast cancer than centers reporting lower frequencies. The likelihood ratio for breast cancer after a recommendation for short-interval follow-up on a subsequent mammogram was 2.20 (95% confidence interval = 1.65 to 2.86). Having a mammographic recommendation for short-interval follow-up was associated with a low positive predictive value for breast cancer among postmenopausal women during a 2-year follow-up. This result suggests that the current criteria for this recommendation-repeat mammography within 6 months-should be reconsidered.

Use of the American College of Radiology BI-RADS to report on the mammographic evaluation of women with signs and symptoms of breast disease.

To examine whether mammographic assessments and recommendations are linked as expected, based on the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS), for the evaluation of women with signs and symptoms of breast disease. Eight mammography registries from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium contributed mammographic data from 1996 through 1997 for women 25 years of age or older, with signs or symptoms of breast cancer. The association of assessments and recommendations and the relationship of self-reported symptoms to assessments are described. A total of 51,673 diagnostic mammograms were included in the analyses and the expected management recommendation was provided 85%-90% of the time for mammograms classified as assessment categories 1, 2, 4, or 5. Category 3 ("probably benign finding") had the most variability in associated management recommendations, with only 40% (2,998 of 7,423) of cases associated with the recommendation for short interval follow-up. Of the 1,648 category 0 mammograms ("needs additional imaging") that did not have a final assessment, 64% were recommended for additional imaging, while another 20% of the cases were recommended for either a consultation or biopsy. The number of women who reported a lump as a symptom decreased with age but was associated with higher BI-RADS assessments. BI-RADS assessment categories were generally used as intended for all categories but 0 and 3. Additional education about the use of these categories may be warranted. The inconsistencies between assessment category and management recommendations may present difficulties in conducting outcome audits.