Christiane M Hakim1, Marie I Anello2, Cathy S Cohen2, Marie A Ganott2, Amy H Lu2, Ronald L Perrin2, Ratan Shah2, Marion Lee Spangler2, Andriy I Bandos3, David Gur4. 1. Department of Radiology, Magee-Womens Hospital of University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, University of Pittsburgh, 300 Halket Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15213. Electronic address: chakim@mail.magee.edu. 2. Department of Radiology, Magee-Womens Hospital of University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, University of Pittsburgh, 300 Halket Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15213. 3. Department of Biostatistics, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA. 4. Department of Radiology, Radiology Imaging Research, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.
Abstract
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To assess the interaction between the availability of prior examinations and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in decisions to recall a woman during interpretation of mammograms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight radiologists independently interpreted twice 36 mammography examinations, each of which had current and prior full-field digital mammography images (FFDM) and DBT under a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant, institutional review board-approved protocol (written consent waived). During the first reading, three sequential ratings were provided using FFDM only, followed by FFDM + DBT, and then followed by FFDM + DBT + priors. The second reading included FFDM only, then FFDM + priors, and then FFDM + priors + DBT. Twenty-two benign cases clinically recalled, 12 negative/benign examinations (not recalled), and two verified cancer cases were included. Recall recommendations and interaction between the effect of priors and DBT on decisions were assessed (P = .05 significance level) using generalized linear model (PROC GLIMMIX, SAS, version 9.3; SAS Institute, Cary, NC) accounting for case and reader variability. RESULTS: Average recall rates in noncancer cases were significantly reduced (51%; P < .001) with the addition of DBT and with addition of priors (23%; P = .01). In absolute terms, the addition of DBT to FFDM reduced the recall rates from 0.67 to 0.42 and from 0.54 to 0.27 when DBT was available before and after priors, respectively. Recall reductions were from 0.64 to 0.54 and from 0.42 to 0.33 when priors were available before and after DBT, respectively. Regardless of the sequence in presentation, there were no statistically significant interactions between the effect of availability of DBT and priors (P = .80). CONCLUSIONS: Availability of both priors and DBT are independent primary factors in reducing recall recommendations during mammographic interpretations.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To assess the interaction between the availability of prior examinations and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in decisions to recall a woman during interpretation of mammograms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight radiologists independently interpreted twice 36 mammography examinations, each of which had current and prior full-field digital mammography images (FFDM) and DBT under a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant, institutional review board-approved protocol (written consent waived). During the first reading, three sequential ratings were provided using FFDM only, followed by FFDM + DBT, and then followed by FFDM + DBT + priors. The second reading included FFDM only, then FFDM + priors, and then FFDM + priors + DBT. Twenty-two benign cases clinically recalled, 12 negative/benign examinations (not recalled), and two verified cancer cases were included. Recall recommendations and interaction between the effect of priors and DBT on decisions were assessed (P = .05 significance level) using generalized linear model (PROC GLIMMIX, SAS, version 9.3; SAS Institute, Cary, NC) accounting for case and reader variability. RESULTS: Average recall rates in noncancer cases were significantly reduced (51%; P < .001) with the addition of DBT and with addition of priors (23%; P = .01). In absolute terms, the addition of DBT to FFDM reduced the recall rates from 0.67 to 0.42 and from 0.54 to 0.27 when DBT was available before and after priors, respectively. Recall reductions were from 0.64 to 0.54 and from 0.42 to 0.33 when priors were available before and after DBT, respectively. Regardless of the sequence in presentation, there were no statistically significant interactions between the effect of availability of DBT and priors (P = .80). CONCLUSIONS: Availability of both priors and DBT are independent primary factors in reducing recall recommendations during mammographic interpretations.
Authors: Jules H Sumkin; Brenda L Holbert; Jennifer S Herrmann; Christiane A Hakim; Marie A Ganott; William R Poller; Ratan Shah; Lara A Hardesty; David Gur Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: David Gur; Gordon S Abrams; Denise M Chough; Marie A Ganott; Christiane M Hakim; Ronald L Perrin; Grace Y Rathfon; Jules H Sumkin; Margarita L Zuley; Andriy I Bandos Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Elizabeth A Rafferty; Jeong Mi Park; Liane E Philpotts; Steven P Poplack; Jules H Sumkin; Elkan F Halpern; Loren T Niklason Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-11-20 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: D Bernardi; S Ciatto; M Pellegrini; V Anesi; S Burlon; E Cauli; M Depaoli; L Larentis; V Malesani; L Targa; P Baldo; N Houssami Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Per Skaane; Andriy I Bandos; Randi Gullien; Ellen B Eben; Ulrika Ekseth; Unni Haakenaasen; Mina Izadi; Ingvild N Jebsen; Gunnar Jahr; Mona Krager; Loren T Niklason; Solveig Hofvind; David Gur Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-01-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Antonius A J Roelofs; Nico Karssemeijer; Nora Wedekind; Christian Beck; Sander van Woudenberg; Peter R Snoeren; Jan H C L Hendriks; Marco Rosselli del Turco; Nils Bjurstam; Hans Junkermann; David Beijerinck; Brigitte Séradour; Carl J G Evertsz Journal: Radiology Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Christiane M Hakim; Victor J Catullo; Denise M Chough; Marie A Ganott; Amy E Kelly; Dilip D Shinde; Jules H Sumkin; Luisa P Wallace; Andriy I Bandos; David Gur Journal: Radiology Date: 2015-03-13 Impact factor: 11.105