Christoph I Lee1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10, Weiwei Zhu1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10, Tracy L Onega1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10, Jessica Germino1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10, Ellen S O'Meara1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10, Constance D Lehman1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10, Louise M Henderson1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10, Jennifer S Haas1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10, Karla Kerlikowske1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10, Brian L Sprague1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10, Garth H Rauscher1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10, Anna N A Tosteson1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10, Jennifer Alford-Teaster1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10, Karen J Wernli1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10, Diana L Miglioretti1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10. 1. 1 Department of Radiology, University of Washington School of Medicine, 825 Eastlake Ave E, G3-200, Seattle, WA 98109. 2. 2 Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA. 3. 3 Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy & Clinical Practice, Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Geisel School of Medicine, Lebanon, NH. 4. 4 Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. 5. 5 Department of Radiology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC. 6. 6 Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Dana Farber Harvard Cancer Institute, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA. 7. 7 Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA. 8. 8 Department of Surgery, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT. 9. 9 Department of Epidemiology, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL. 10. 10 Division of Biostatistics, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) adoption was associated with a decrease in screening mammography capacity across Breast Cancer Screening Consortium facilities, given concerns about increasing imaging and interpretation times associated with DBT. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Facility characteristics and examination volume data were collected prospectively from Breast Cancer Screening Consortium facilities that adopted DBT between 2011 and 2014. Interrupted time series analyses using Poisson regression models in which facility was considered a random effect were used to evaluate differences between monthly screening volumes during the 12-month preadoption period and the 12-month postadoption period (with the two periods separated by a 3-month lag) and to test for changes in month-to-month facility-level screening volume during the preadoption and postadoption periods. RESULTS: Across five regional breast imaging registries, 15 of 83 facilities (18.1%) adopted DBT for screening between 2011 and 2014. Most had no academic affiliation (73.3% [11/15]), were nonprofit (80.0% [12/15]), and were general radiology practices (66.7% [10/15]). Facility-level monthly screening volumes were slightly higher during the postadoption versus preadoption periods (relative risk [RR], 1.09; 95% CI, 1.06-1.11). Monthly screening volumes remained relatively stable within the preadoption period (RR, 1.00 per month; 95% CI 1.00-1.01 per month) and the postadoption period (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 1.00-1.01 per month). CONCLUSION: In a cohort of facilities with varied characteristics, monthly screening examination volumes did not decrease after DBT adoption.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) adoption was associated with a decrease in screening mammography capacity across Breast Cancer Screening Consortium facilities, given concerns about increasing imaging and interpretation times associated with DBT. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Facility characteristics and examination volume data were collected prospectively from Breast Cancer Screening Consortium facilities that adopted DBT between 2011 and 2014. Interrupted time series analyses using Poisson regression models in which facility was considered a random effect were used to evaluate differences between monthly screening volumes during the 12-month preadoption period and the 12-month postadoption period (with the two periods separated by a 3-month lag) and to test for changes in month-to-month facility-level screening volume during the preadoption and postadoption periods. RESULTS: Across five regional breast imaging registries, 15 of 83 facilities (18.1%) adopted DBT for screening between 2011 and 2014. Most had no academic affiliation (73.3% [11/15]), were nonprofit (80.0% [12/15]), and were general radiology practices (66.7% [10/15]). Facility-level monthly screening volumes were slightly higher during the postadoption versus preadoption periods (relative risk [RR], 1.09; 95% CI, 1.06-1.11). Monthly screening volumes remained relatively stable within the preadoption period (RR, 1.00 per month; 95% CI 1.00-1.01 per month) and the postadoption period (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 1.00-1.01 per month). CONCLUSION: In a cohort of facilities with varied characteristics, monthly screening examination volumes did not decrease after DBT adoption.
Entities:
Keywords:
breast cancer screening; capacity; digital breast tomosynthesis; technology adoption
Authors: Dione M Farria; Maria E Schmidt; Barbara S Monsees; Robert A Smith; Charles Hildebolt; Roberta Yoffie; Debra L Monticciolo; Stephen A Feig; Lawrence W Bassett Journal: Cancer Date: 2005-08-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Nancy Breen; Kathleen A Cronin; Helen I Meissner; Stephen H Taplin; Florence K Tangka; Jasmin A Tiro; Timothy S McNeel Journal: Cancer Date: 2007-06-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Christoph I Lee; Andy Bogart; Rebecca A Hubbard; Eniola T Obadina; Deirdre A Hill; Jennifer S Haas; Anna N A Tosteson; Jennifer A Alford-Teaster; Brian L Sprague; Wendy B DeMartini; Constance D Lehman; Tracy L Onega Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2015-04-04 Impact factor: 3.173
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: Elena B Elkin; J Paige Nobles; Laura C Pinheiro; Coral L Atoria; Deborah Schrag Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2013-03-07 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Linda S Elting; Catherine D Cooksley; B Nebiyou Bekele; Sharon H Giordano; Ya Chen Tina Shih; Kelly K Lovell; Elenir B C Avritscher; Richard Theriault Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2009-06-12 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Christoph I Lee; Weiwei Zhu; Tracy Onega; Louise M Henderson; Karla Kerlikowske; Brian L Sprague; Garth H Rauscher; Ellen S O'Meara; Anna N A Tosteson; Jennifer S Haas; Roberta diFlorio-Alexander; Celia Kaplan; Diana L Miglioretti Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-02-01