Impact of Immediate Interpretation of Screening Tomosynthesis Mammography on Performance Metrics

Enhancing Early-Stage Breast Cancer Survivorship: Evidence-Based Strategies, Surveillance Testing, and Imaging Guidelines

Addressing the challenges of survivorship necessitates a comprehensive, patient-centered approach, focusing on mitigating risk through lifestyle modification, identifying distant recurrence, and optimization of breast imaging. This article will discuss the current and emerging clinical strategies for the survivorship period, advocating a multidisciplinary and comprehensive approach. In this manner, early-stage breast cancer survivors are empowered to navigate their journey with enhanced knowledge, facilitating a transition to life beyond cancer.

Current Practice and Variation in Same-Day Services in Breast Imaging: A Multi-Institutional National Survey of the Society of Breast Imaging Membership

OBJECTIVE

The availability of same-day services in breast imaging is an important topic given potential advantages for timely diagnoses and patient experiences, but there are potential barriers that lead facilities to not offer these services. We sought to understand current practice patterns and radiologist perspectives on offering same-day services.

METHODS

The Society of Breast Imaging (SBI) Patient Care & Delivery Committee developed a 19-question survey that was emailed to all 3449 active members of the SBI in May 2023. An exemption from the institutional review board was obtained at the lead author's institution. The survey consisted of 19 questions that were designed to understand the scope, perceptions, barriers, and logistics of same-day services. Comparisons were made between responses for offering same-day services (screening interpretation, diagnostic examinations, biopsies) and respondent demographics.

RESULTS

A total of 437 American and Canadian members participated, yielding a response rate of 12.7%. Respondents were most commonly in private practice (43.0%, 188/437), working in an outpatient medical center-based clinic (41.9%, 183/437), and without trainees (64.5%, 282/437). Respondents estimated 12.1% of screening examinations were interpreted while patients waited, which was significantly more common in free-standing breast imaging clinics (P = .028) and practices without trainees (P = .036). Respondents estimated 15.0% of diagnostic examinations were performed same day, which was more common in academic and private practices (P = .03) and practices without trainees (P = .01). Respondents estimated 11.5% of biopsies were performed the same day as the recommendation, which had no association with practice type/context, presence of trainees, number of mammography units, number of radiologists, or number of technologists. Long patient travel distance and limited patient mobility were the most cited reasons for offering patients same-day services.

CONCLUSION

Offering same-day breast imaging services varies among institutions and may be influenced by factors such as practice context and type and the presence of trainees.

Prioritizing Screening Mammograms for Immediate Interpretation and Diagnostic Evaluation on the Basis of Risk for Recall

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to develop a prioritization strategy for scheduling immediate screening mammographic interpretation and possible diagnostic evaluation.

METHODS

A population-based cohort with screening mammograms performed from 2012 to 2020 at 126 radiology facilities from 7 Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium registries was identified. Classification trees identified combinations of clinical history (age, BI-RADS® density, time since prior mammogram, history of false-positive recall or biopsy result), screening modality (digital mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis), and facility characteristics (profit status, location, screening volume, practice type, academic affiliation) that grouped screening mammograms by recall rate, with ≥12/100 considered high and ≥16/100 very high. An efficiency ratio was estimated as the percentage of recalls divided by the percentage of mammograms.

RESULTS

The study cohort included 2,674,051 screening mammograms in 925,777 women, with 235,569 recalls. The most important predictor of recall was time since prior mammogram, followed by age, history of false-positive recall, breast density, history of benign biopsy, and screening modality. Recall rates were very high for baseline mammograms (21.3/100; 95% confidence interval, 19.7-23.0) and high for women with ≥5 years since prior mammogram (15.1/100; 95% confidence interval, 14.3-16.1). The 9.2% of mammograms in subgroups with very high and high recall rates accounted for 19.2% of recalls, an efficiency ratio of 2.1 compared with a random approach. Adding women <50 years of age with dense breasts accounted for 20.3% of mammograms and 33.9% of recalls (efficiency ratio = 1.7). Results including facility-level characteristics were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

Prioritizing women with baseline mammograms or ≥5 years since prior mammogram for immediate interpretation and possible diagnostic evaluation could considerably reduce the number of women needing to return for diagnostic imaging at another visit.

Live Mammographic Screening Interpretation Versus Offline Same-Day Screening Interpretation at a Tertiary Cancer Center

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare screening mammography performance metrics for immediate (live) interpretation versus offline interpretation at a cancer center.

METHODS

An institutional review board-approved, retrospective comparison of screening mammography metrics at a cancer center for January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2019 (live period), and September 1, 2020, to March 31, 2022 (offline period), was performed. Before July 2020, screening examinations were interpreted while patients waited (live period), and diagnostic workup was performed concurrently. After the coronavirus disease 2019 shutdown from March to mid-June 2020, offline same-day interpretation was instituted. Patients with abnormal screening results returned for separate diagnostic evaluation. Screening metrics of positive predictive value 1 (PPV1), cancer detection rate (CDR), and abnormal interpretation rate (AIR) were compared for 17 radiologists who interpreted during both periods. Statistical significance was assessed using χ² analysis.

RESULTS

In the live period, there were 7,105 screenings, 635 recalls, and 51 screen-detected cancers. In the offline period, there were 7,512 screenings, 586 recalls, and 47 screen-detected cancers. Comparison of live screening metrics versus offline metrics produced the following results: AIR, 8.9% (635 of 7,105) versus 7.8% (586 of 7,512) (P = .01); PPV1, 8.0% (51 of 635) versus 8.0% (47 of 586); and CDR, 7.2/1,000 versus 6.3/1,000 (P = .50). When grouped by >10% AIR or <10% AIR for the live period, the >10% AIR group showed a significant decrease in AIR for offline interpretation (from 12.7% to 9.7%, P < .001), whereas the <10% AIR group showed no significant change (from 7.4% to 6.7%, P = .17).

CONCLUSIONS

Conversion to offline screening interpretation from immediate interpretation at a cancer center was associated with lower AIR and similar CDR and PPV1. This effect was seen largely in radiologists with AIR > 10% in the live setting.

Imaging Surveillance Options for Individuals With a Personal History of Breast Cancer: AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review

Annual surveillance mammography is recommended for breast cancer survivors on the basis of observational studies and meta-analyses showing reduced breast cancer mortality and improved quality of life. However, breast cancer survivors are at higher risk of subsequent breast cancer and have a fourfold increased risk of interval breast cancers compared with individuals without a personal history of breast cancer. Supplemental surveillance modalities offer increased cancer detection compared with mammography alone, but utilization is variable, and benefits must be balanced with possible harms of false-positive findings. In this review, we describe the current state of mammographic surveillance, summarize evidence for supplemental surveillance in breast cancer survivors, and explore a risk-based approach to selecting surveillance imaging strategies. Further research identifying predictors associated with increased risk of interval second breast cancers and development of validated risk prediction tools may help physicians and patients weigh the benefits and harms of surveillance breast imaging and decide on a personalized approach to surveillance for improved breast cancer outcomes.

Online or Offline: Does It Matter? A Review of Existing Interpretation Approaches and Their Effect on Screening Mammography Metrics, Patient Satisfaction, and Cost

The ideal practice routine for screening mammography would optimize performance metrics and minimize costs, while also maximizing patient satisfaction. The main approaches to screening mammography interpretation include batch offline, non-batch offline, interrupted online, and uninterrupted online reading, each of which has its own advantages and drawbacks. This article reviews the current literature on approaches to screening mammography interpretation, potential effects of newer technologies, and promising artificial intelligence resources that could improve workflow efficiency in the future.

How to Minimize Patient Anxiety From Screening Mammography

Anxiety has been portrayed by the media and some organizations and societies as one of the harms of mammography. However, one experiences anxiety in multiple different medical tests that are undertaken, including screening examinations; it is not unique to mammography. Some may argue that because this anxiety is transient, the so-called harm is potentially overstated, but for some women the anxiety is significant. Anxiety can increase or decrease the likelihood of obtaining a screening mammogram. There are multiple ways that anxiety associated with screening mammography can be diminished, including before, during, and after the examination. These include simple measures such as patient education, improved communication, being aware of the patient's potential discomfort and addressing it, validating the patient's anxiety as well as providing the patient with positive factual data that can easily be implemented in every breast center. More complex interventions include altering the breast center environment with multisensory stimulation, reorganization of patient flow to minimize wait times, and relaxation techniques including complementary and alternative medicine. In this article we will review the literature on measures that can be taken to minimize anxiety that would maximize the likelihood of a woman obtaining an annual screening mammogram.

Disparities in Same-Day Diagnostic Imaging in Breast Cancer Screening: Impact of an Immediate-Read Screening Mammography Program Implemented During the COVID-19 Pandemic

BACKGROUND. The need for second visits between screening mammography and diagnostic imaging contributes to disparities in the time to breast cancer diagnosis. During the COVID-19 pandemic, an immediate-read screening mammography program was implemented to reduce patient visits and decrease time to diagnostic imaging. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to measure the impact of an immediate-read screening program with focus on disparities in same-day diagnostic imaging after abnormal findings are made at screening mammography. METHODS. In May 2020, an immediate-read screening program was implemented whereby a dedicated breast imaging radiologist interpreted all screening mammograms in real time; patients received results before discharge; and efforts were made to perform any recommended diagnostic imaging during the visit (performed by different radiologists). Screening mammographic examinations performed from June 1, 2019, through October 31, 2019 (preimplementation period), and from June 1, 2020, through October 31, 2020 (postimplementation period), were retrospectively identified. Patient characteristics were recorded from the electronic medical record. Multivariable logistic regression models incorporating patient age, race and ethnicity, language, and insurance type were estimated to identify factors associated with same-day diagnostic imaging. Screening metrics were compared between periods. RESULTS. A total of 8222 preimplementation and 7235 postimplementation screening examinations were included; 521 patients had abnormal screening findings before implementation, and 359 after implementation. Before implementation, 14.8% of patients underwent same-day diagnostic imaging after abnormal screening mammograms. This percentage increased to 60.7% after implementation. Before implementation, patients who identified their race as other than White had significantly lower odds than patients who identified their race as White of undergoing same-day diagnostic imaging after receiving abnormal screening results (adjusted odds ratio, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.10-0.86; p = .03). After implementation, the odds of same-day diagnostic imaging were not significantly different between patients of other races and White patients (adjusted odds ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.50-1.71; p = .80). After implementation, there was no significant difference in race and ethnicity between patients who underwent and those who did not undergo same-day diagnostic imaging after receiving abnormal results of screening mammography (p > .05). The rate of abnormal interpretation was significantly lower after than it was before implementation (5.0% vs 6.3%; p < .001). Cancer detection rate and PPV1 (PPV based on positive findings at screening examination) were not significantly different before and after implementation (p > .05). CONCLUSION. Implementation of the immediate-read screening mammography program reduced prior racial and ethnic disparities in same-day diagnostic imaging after abnormal screening mammograms. CLINICAL IMPACT. An immediate-read screening program provides a new paradigm for improved screening mammography workflow that allows more rapid diagnostic workup with reduced disparities in care.

Batch Reading and Interrupted Interpretation of Digital Screening Mammograms Without and With Tomosynthesis

OBJECTIVE

To compare batch reading and interrupted interpretation for modern screening mammography.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed digital mammograms without and with tomosynthesis that were originally interpreted with batch reading or interrupted interpretation between January 2015 and June 2017. The following performance metrics were compared: recall rate (per 100 examinations), cancer detection rate (per 1,000 examinations), and positive predictive values for recall and biopsy.

RESULTS

In all, 9,832 digital mammograms were batch read, yielding a recall rate of 9.98%, cancer detection rate of 4.27, and positive predictive values for recall and biopsy of 4.40% and 35.5%, respectively. There were 49,496 digital mammograms that were read with interrupted interpretation, yielding a recall rate of 11.3%, cancer detection rate of 4.44, and positive predictive values for recall and biopsy of 3.92% and 30.1%, respectively. Of the digital mammograms with tomosynthesis, 7,075 were batch read, yielding a recall rate of 6.98%, cancer detection rate of 5.37, and positive predictive values for recall and biopsy of 7.69% and 38.0%, respectively. Of the digital mammograms with tomosynthesis, 24,380 were read with interrupted interpretation, yielding a recall rate of 8.30%, cancer detection rate of 5.41, and positive predictive values for recall and biopsy of 6.52% and 33.3%, respectively. For both digital mammograms without and with tomosynthesis, recall rates improved with batch reading compared with interrupted interpretation (P < .001), but no significant differences were seen for other metrics.

DISCUSSION

Batch reading digital mammograms without and with tomosynthesis improves recall rates while maintaining cancer detection rates and positive predictive values compared with interrupted interpretation.