Brian L Sprague1,2, R Yates Coley3, Karla Kerlikowske4,5,6, Garth H Rauscher7, Louise M Henderson8,9, Tracy Onega10,11, Christoph I Lee12,13, Sally D Herschorn2, Anna N A Tosteson14,15, Diana L Miglioretti16,17. 1. Department of Surgery, University of Vermont Cancer Center, University of Vermont, Burlington. 2. Department of Radiology, University of Vermont Cancer Center, University of Vermont, Burlington. 3. Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle. 4. Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco. 5. General Internal Medicine Section, Department of Veterans Affairs, University of California, San Francisco. 6. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco. 7. Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Illinois at Chicago. 8. Department of Radiology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. 9. Department of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. 10. Department of Biomedical Data Science, The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice and Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, New Hampshire. 11. Department of Epidemiology, The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice and Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, New Hampshire. 12. Department of Radiology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle. 13. Hutchinson Institute for Cancer Outcomes Research, Seattle, Washington. 14. The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Lebanon, New Hampshire. 15. Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, New Hampshire. 16. Division of Biostatistics, Department of Public Health Sciences, University of California Davis School of Medicine, Davis. 17. Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Kaiser Permanente Washington, Seattle.
Abstract
Importance: Many US radiologists have screening mammography recall rates above the expert-recommended threshold of 12%. The influence of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) on the distribution of radiologist recall rates is uncertain. Objective: To evaluate radiologists' recall and cancer detection rates before and after beginning interpretation of DBT examinations. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included 198 radiologists from 104 radiology facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium who interpreted 251 384 DBT and 2 000 681 digital mammography (DM) screening examinations from 2009 to 2017, including 126 radiologists (63.6%) who interpreted DBT examinations during the study period and 72 (36.4%) who exclusively interpreted DM examinations (to adjust for secular trends). Data were analyzed from April 2018 to July 2019. Exposures: Digital breast tomosynthesis and DM screening examinations. Main Outcomes and Measures: Recall rate and cancer detection rate. Results: A total of 198 radiologists interpreted 2 252 065 DM and DBT examinations (2 000 681 [88.8%] DM examinations; 251 384 [11.2%] DBT examinations; 710 934 patients [31.6%] aged 50-59 years; 1 448 981 [64.3%] non-Hispanic white). Among the 126 radiologists (63.6%) who interpreted DBT examinations, 83 (65.9%) had unadjusted DM recall rates of no more than 12% before using DBT, with a median (interquartile range) recall rate of 10.0% (7.5%-13.0%). On DBT examinations, 96 (76.2%) had an unadjusted recall rate of no more than 12%, with a median (interquartile range) recall rate of 8.8% (6.3%-11.3%). A secular trend in recall rate was observed, with the multivariable-adjusted risk of recall on screening examinations declining by 1.2% (95% CI, 0.9%-1.5%) per year. After adjusting for examination characteristics and secular trends, recall rates were 15% lower on DBT examinations compared with DM examinations interpreted before DBT use (relative risk, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.83-0.87). Adjusted recall rates were significantly lower on DBT examinations compared with DM examinations interpreted before DBT use for 45 radiologists (35.7%) and significantly higher for 18 (14.3%); 63 (50.0%) had no statistically significant change. The unadjusted cancer detection rate on DBT was 5.3 per 1000 examinations (95% CI, 5.0-5.7 per 1000 examinations) compared with 4.7 per 1000 examinations (95% CI, 4.6-4.8 per 1000 examinations) on DM examinations interpreted before DM use (multivariable-adjusted risk ratio, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.11-1.33). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, DBT was associated with an overall decrease in recall rate and an increase in cancer detection rate. However, our results indicated that there is wide variability among radiologists, including a subset of radiologists who experienced increased recall rates on DBT examinations. Radiology practices should audit radiologist DBT screening performance and consider additional DBT training for radiologists whose performance does not improve as expected.
Importance: Many US radiologists have screening mammography recall rates above the expert-recommended threshold of 12%. The influence of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) on the distribution of radiologist recall rates is uncertain. Objective: To evaluate radiologists' recall and cancer detection rates before and after beginning interpretation of DBT examinations. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included 198 radiologists from 104 radiology facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium who interpreted 251 384 DBT and 2 000 681 digital mammography (DM) screening examinations from 2009 to 2017, including 126 radiologists (63.6%) who interpreted DBT examinations during the study period and 72 (36.4%) who exclusively interpreted DM examinations (to adjust for secular trends). Data were analyzed from April 2018 to July 2019. Exposures: Digital breast tomosynthesis and DM screening examinations. Main Outcomes and Measures: Recall rate and cancer detection rate. Results: A total of 198 radiologists interpreted 2 252 065 DM and DBT examinations (2 000 681 [88.8%] DM examinations; 251 384 [11.2%] DBT examinations; 710 934 patients [31.6%] aged 50-59 years; 1 448 981 [64.3%] non-Hispanic white). Among the 126 radiologists (63.6%) who interpreted DBT examinations, 83 (65.9%) had unadjusted DM recall rates of no more than 12% before using DBT, with a median (interquartile range) recall rate of 10.0% (7.5%-13.0%). On DBT examinations, 96 (76.2%) had an unadjusted recall rate of no more than 12%, with a median (interquartile range) recall rate of 8.8% (6.3%-11.3%). A secular trend in recall rate was observed, with the multivariable-adjusted risk of recall on screening examinations declining by 1.2% (95% CI, 0.9%-1.5%) per year. After adjusting for examination characteristics and secular trends, recall rates were 15% lower on DBT examinations compared with DM examinations interpreted before DBT use (relative risk, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.83-0.87). Adjusted recall rates were significantly lower on DBT examinations compared with DM examinations interpreted before DBT use for 45 radiologists (35.7%) and significantly higher for 18 (14.3%); 63 (50.0%) had no statistically significant change. The unadjusted cancer detection rate on DBT was 5.3 per 1000 examinations (95% CI, 5.0-5.7 per 1000 examinations) compared with 4.7 per 1000 examinations (95% CI, 4.6-4.8 per 1000 examinations) on DM examinations interpreted before DM use (multivariable-adjusted risk ratio, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.11-1.33). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, DBT was associated with an overall decrease in recall rate and an increase in cancer detection rate. However, our results indicated that there is wide variability among radiologists, including a subset of radiologists who experienced increased recall rates on DBT examinations. Radiology practices should audit radiologist DBT screening performance and consider additional DBT training for radiologists whose performance does not improve as expected.
Authors: Robert D Rosenberg; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Linn A Abraham; Edward A Sickles; Constance D Lehman; Berta M Geller; Patricia A Carney; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana S M Buist; Donald L Weaver; William E Barlow; Rachel Ballard-Barbash Journal: Radiology Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 11.105
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: Manisha Bahl; Shannon Gaffney; Anne Marie McCarthy; Kathryn P Lowry; Pragya A Dang; Constance D Lehman Journal: Radiology Date: 2017-12-22 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Nehmat Houssami; Linn A Abraham; Diana L Miglioretti; Edward A Sickles; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana S M Buist; Berta M Geller; Hyman B Muss; Les Irwig Journal: JAMA Date: 2011-02-23 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Elizabeth S McDonald; Andrew Oustimov; Susan P Weinstein; Marie B Synnestvedt; Mitchell Schnall; Emily F Conant Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2016-06-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Constance D Lehman; Robert F Arao; Brian L Sprague; Janie M Lee; Diana S M Buist; Karla Kerlikowske; Louise M Henderson; Tracy Onega; Anna N A Tosteson; Garth H Rauscher; Diana L Miglioretti Journal: Radiology Date: 2016-12-05 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Patricia A Carney; Edward A Sickles; Barbara S Monsees; Lawrence W Bassett; R James Brenner; Stephen A Feig; Robert A Smith; Robert D Rosenberg; T Andrew Bogart; Sally Browning; Jane W Barry; Mary M Kelly; Khai A Tran; Diana L Miglioretti Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Sarah M Friedewald; Elizabeth A Rafferty; Stephen L Rose; Melissa A Durand; Donna M Plecha; Julianne S Greenberg; Mary K Hayes; Debra S Copit; Kara L Carlson; Thomas M Cink; Lora D Barke; Linda N Greer; Dave P Miller; Emily F Conant Journal: JAMA Date: 2014-06-25 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Karla Kerlikowske; Yu-Ru Su; Brian L Sprague; Anna N A Tosteson; Diana S M Buist; Tracy Onega; Louise M Henderson; Nila Alsheik; Michael C S Bissell; Ellen S O'Meara; Christoph I Lee; Diana L Miglioretti Journal: JAMA Date: 2022-06-14 Impact factor: 157.335
Authors: Ilana B Richman; Jessica B Long; Jessica R Hoag; Akhil Upneja; Regina Hooley; Xiao Xu; Natalia Kunst; Jenerius A Aminawung; Kelly A Kyanko; Susan H Busch; Cary P Gross Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2021-11-02 Impact factor: 11.816
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
Authors: Paola Clauser; Pascal A T Baltzer; Panagiotis Kapetas; Ramona Woitek; Michael Weber; Federica Leone; Maria Bernathova; Thomas H Helbich Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2021-07-29 Impact factor: 5.315