BACKGROUND: Digital mammography is the dominant modality for breast cancer screening in the United States. No previous studies have investigated as to how introducing digital mammography affects downstream breast-related care. OBJECTIVE: Compare breast-related health care use after a screening mammogram before and after introduction of digital mammography. RESEARCH DESIGN AND SUBJECTS: Longitudinal study of screening mammograms from 14 radiology facilities contributing data to the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium performed 1 year before and 4 years after each facility introduced digital mammography, along with linked Medicare claims. We included 30,211 mammograms for women aged 66 years and older without breast cancer. MEASURES: Rates of false-positive recall and short-interval follow-up were based on radiologists' assessments and recommendations; rates of follow-up mammography, ultrasound, and breast biopsy use were based on Medicare claims. RESULTS: False-positive recall rates increased after the introduction of digital mammography. Follow-up mammography use was significantly higher across all 4 years after a facility began using digital mammography compared with the year before [year 1 odds ratio (OR) = 1.7, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.4-2.1]. Among women with false-positive mammography results, use of ultrasound decreased significantly in the second through fourth years after digital mammography began (year 2 OR = 0.4, 95% CI, 0.3-0.6). CONCLUSIONS: Introduction of a new technology led to changes in health care use that persisted for at least 4 years. Comparative effectiveness research on new technologies should consider not only diagnostic performance but also downstream utilization attributable to this apparent learning curve.
BACKGROUND: Digital mammography is the dominant modality for breast cancer screening in the United States. No previous studies have investigated as to how introducing digital mammography affects downstream breast-related care. OBJECTIVE: Compare breast-related health care use after a screening mammogram before and after introduction of digital mammography. RESEARCH DESIGN AND SUBJECTS: Longitudinal study of screening mammograms from 14 radiology facilities contributing data to the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium performed 1 year before and 4 years after each facility introduced digital mammography, along with linked Medicare claims. We included 30,211 mammograms for women aged 66 years and older without breast cancer. MEASURES: Rates of false-positive recall and short-interval follow-up were based on radiologists' assessments and recommendations; rates of follow-up mammography, ultrasound, and breast biopsy use were based on Medicare claims. RESULTS: False-positive recall rates increased after the introduction of digital mammography. Follow-up mammography use was significantly higher across all 4 years after a facility began using digital mammography compared with the year before [year 1 odds ratio (OR) = 1.7, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.4-2.1]. Among women with false-positive mammography results, use of ultrasound decreased significantly in the second through fourth years after digital mammography began (year 2 OR = 0.4, 95% CI, 0.3-0.6). CONCLUSIONS: Introduction of a new technology led to changes in health care use that persisted for at least 4 years. Comparative effectiveness research on new technologies should consider not only diagnostic performance but also downstream utilization attributable to this apparent learning curve.
Authors: Karla Kerlikowske; Rebecca A Hubbard; Diana L Miglioretti; Berta M Geller; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Constance D Lehman; Stephen H Taplin; Edward A Sickles Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-10-18 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Anna N A Tosteson; Natasha K Stout; Dennis G Fryback; Suddhasatta Acharyya; Benjamin A Herman; Lucy G Hannah; Etta D Pisano Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2008-01-01 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: R Ballard-Barbash; S H Taplin; B C Yankaskas; V L Ernster; R D Rosenberg; P A Carney; W E Barlow; B M Geller; K Kerlikowske; B K Edwards; C F Lynch; N Urban; C A Chrvala; C R Key; S P Poplack; J K Worden; L G Kessler Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 1997-10 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Etta D Pisano; Constantine Gatsonis; Edward Hendrick; Martin Yaffe; Janet K Baum; Suddhasatta Acharyya; Emily F Conant; Laurie L Fajardo; Lawrence Bassett; Carl D'Orsi; Roberta Jong; Murray Rebner Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-09-16 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Edward A Sickles; Diana L Miglioretti; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Berta M Geller; Jessica W T Leung; Robert D Rosenberg; Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Bonnie C Yankaskas Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Niamh M Hambly; Michelle M McNicholas; Niall Phelan; Gormlaith C Hargaden; Ann O'Doherty; Fidelma L Flanagan Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Sarah Vinnicombe; Snehal M Pinto Pereira; Valerie A McCormack; Susan Shiel; Nick Perry; Isabel M Dos Santos Silva Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-05 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Patricia A Carney; Diana L Miglioretti; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Karla Kerlikowske; Robert Rosenberg; Carolyn M Rutter; Berta M Geller; Linn A Abraham; Steven H Taplin; Mark Dignan; Gary Cutter; Rachel Ballard-Barbash Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2003-02-04 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Diana S M Buist; Melissa L Anderson; Robert A Smith; Patricia A Carney; Diana L Miglioretti; Barbara S Monsees; Edward A Sickles; Stephen H Taplin; Berta M Geller; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Tracy L Onega Journal: Radiology Date: 2014-06-24 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Anne Marie McCarthy; Philip Yamartino; Jianing Yang; Mirar Bristol; Emily F Conant; Katrina Armstrong Journal: Med Care Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Shah Hussain; Iqra Mubeen; Niamat Ullah; Syed Shahab Ud Din Shah; Bakhtawar Abduljalil Khan; Muhammad Zahoor; Riaz Ullah; Farhat Ali Khan; Mujeeb A Sultan Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2022-06-06 Impact factor: 3.246
Authors: Rebecca A Hubbard; Weiwei Zhu; Ruslan Horblyuk; Leah Karliner; Brian L Sprague; Louise Henderson; David Lee; Tracy Onega; Diana S M Buist; Alison Sweet Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2013-03-08 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Natasha K Stout; Sandra J Lee; Clyde B Schechter; Karla Kerlikowske; Oguzhan Alagoz; Donald Berry; Diana S M Buist; Mucahit Cevik; Gary Chisholm; Harry J de Koning; Hui Huang; Rebecca A Hubbard; Diana L Miglioretti; Mark F Munsell; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Anna N A Tosteson; Jeanne S Mandelblatt Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2014-05-28 Impact factor: 13.506