Understanding diagnostic variability in breast pathology: lessons learned from an expert consensus review panel

AIMS

To gain a better understanding of the reasons for diagnostic variability, with the aim of reducing the phenomenon.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In preparation for a study on the interpretation of breast specimens (B-PATH), a panel of three experienced breast pathologists reviewed 336 cases to develop consensus reference diagnoses. After independent assessment, cases coded as diagnostically discordant were discussed at consensus meetings. By the use of qualitative data analysis techniques, transcripts of 16 h of consensus meetings for a subset of 201 cases were analysed. Diagnostic variability could be attributed to three overall root causes: (i) pathologist-related; (ii) diagnostic coding/study methodology-related; and (iii) specimen-related. Most pathologist-related root causes were attributable to professional differences in pathologists' opinions about whether the diagnostic criteria for a specific diagnosis were met, most frequently in cases of atypia. Diagnostic coding/study methodology-related root causes were primarily miscategorizations of descriptive text diagnoses, which led to the development of a standardized electronic diagnostic form (BPATH-Dx). Specimen-related root causes included artefacts, limited diagnostic material, and poor slide quality. After re-review and discussion, a consensus diagnosis could be assigned in all cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Diagnostic variability is related to multiple factors, but consensus conferences, standardized electronic reporting formats and comments on suboptimal specimen quality can be used to reduce diagnostic variability.

Changes in the Breast Cancer Risk Distribution among Women Utilizing Screening Mammography in Vermont Between 2001 and 2012

We previously reported a decline in overall breast cancer screening rates in Vermont following 2009. During this period, there has been debate regarding the role of patient context in decisions about when and how often to get screened, as well as increased interest in risk- based screening to optimize the balance between the potential benefits and harms of screening. The purpose of the current study was to evaluate whether the breast cancer risk distribution of the screened population in Vermont has changed during the observed decline in utilization rates. We examined the distribution of breast cancer risk among the screened population in Vermont from 2001 to 2012 using cross-sectional data from the statewide Vermont Breast Cancer Surveillance System. We employed the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium risk model to estimate each individual's risk of developing breast cancer within 5 years according to age, breast density, race/ethnicity, family history of breast cancer, and biopsy history. Among women ages 40 to 74 who received screening mammograms, the absolute number of visits dropped by 4,257, from 54,415 to 50,158 (−7.3%; 95% CI: −7.5, −7.1) between 2009 and 2012. Concurrently, the number of screened women who were estimated to be at low risk of developing breast cancer decreased by 4,240 (95% CI: 3,907, 4,573), representing the bulk of the overall decrease. There was no significant change in the aggregate number of women estimated to be at higher risk (−17 women; 95% CI: −350, 316). The outsized proportion of the decline attributed to women at low estimated risk held across younger and older age groups: among women ages 40 to 49, the absolute number screened dropped by 3,337, with 2,495 (95% CI: 2,389, 2,601) reflected by declines among women at low risk; among women ages 50 to 74, the absolute number screened dropped by only 920, however this value reflects a decrease of 1,763 (95% CI: 1,519, 2,007) for the low risk category, and gains totaling 843 (95% CI: 599, 1,087) among higher risk categories. We conclude that the observed decline in women screened in Vermont since 2009 is largely attributable to reductions in visits by women who are estimated to be at low risk of developing breast cancer, and that this trend generally holds across age groups.

Registry-based study of trends in breast cancer screening mammography before and after the 2009 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations

PURPOSE

To determine whether the 2009 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines for breast cancer mammography screening were followed by changes in screening utilization in the state of Vermont.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective study was HIPAA compliant and approved by the institutional review board, with waiver of informed consent. Trends in screening mammography utilization during 1997-2011 were examined among approximately 150,000 women aged 40 years and older in the state of Vermont using statewide mammography registry data.

RESULTS

The percentage of Vermont women aged 40 years and older screened in the past year declined from 45.3% in 2009% to 41.6% in 2011 (an absolute decrease of -3.7 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -3.3, -4.1). The largest decline in utilization was among women aged 40-49 years (-4.8 percentage points; 95% CI: -4.1, -5.4), although substantial declines were also observed among women aged 50-74 years (-3.0 percentage points; 95% CI: -2.6, -3.5) and women aged 75 years and older (-3.1 percentage points; 95% CI: -2.3, -4.0). The percentage of women aged 50-74 years screened within the past 2 years declined by -3.4 percentage points (95% CI: -3.0, -3.9) from 65.4% in 2009 to 61.9% in 2011.

CONCLUSION

After years of increasing screening mammography utilization in Vermont, there was a decline in screening, which coincided with the release of the 2009 USPSTF recommendations. The age-specific patterns in utilization were generally consistent with the USPSTF recommendations, although there was also evidence that the percentage of women aged 50-74 years screened in the past 2 years declined since 2009.

Patterns of breast magnetic resonance imaging use in community practice

IMPORTANCE

Breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly used for breast cancer screening, diagnostic evaluation, and surveillance. However, we lack data on national patterns of breast MRI use in community practice.

OBJECTIVE

To describe patterns of breast MRI use in US community practice during the period 2005 through 2009.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Observational cohort study using data collected from 2005 through 2009 on breast MRI and mammography from 5 national Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium registries. Data included 8931 breast MRI examinations and 1,288,924 screening mammograms from women aged 18 to 79 years.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

We calculated the rate of breast MRI examinations per 1000 women with breast imaging within the same year and described the clinical indications for the breast MRI examinations by year and age. We compared women screened with breast MRI to women screened with mammography alone for patient characteristics and lifetime breast cancer risk.

RESULTS

The overall rate of breast MRI from 2005 through 2009 nearly tripled from 4.2 to 11.5 examinations per 1000 women, with the most rapid increase from 2005 to 2007 (P = .02). The most common clinical indication was diagnostic evaluation (40.3%), followed by screening (31.7%). Compared with women who received screening mammography alone, women who underwent screening breast MRI were more likely to be younger than 50 years, white non-Hispanic, and nulliparous and to have a personal history of breast cancer, a family history of breast cancer, and extremely dense breast tissue (all P < .001). The proportion of women screened using breast MRI at high lifetime risk for breast cancer (>20%) increased during the study period from 9% in 2005 to 29% in 2009.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Use of breast MRI for screening in high-risk women is increasing. However, our findings suggest that there is a need to improve appropriate use, including among women who may benefit from screening breast MRI.

Patient satisfaction with breast and colorectal cancer survivorship care plans

Cancer survivors face several challenges following the completion of active treatment, including uncertainty about late effects of treatment and confusion about coordination of follow-up care. The authors evaluated patient satisfaction with personalized survivorship care plans designed to clarify those issues. The authors enrolled 48 patients with breast cancer and 10 patients with colorectal cancer who had completed treatment in the previous two months from an urban academic medical center and a rural community hospital. Patient satisfaction with the care plan was assessed by telephone interview. Overall, about 80% of patients were very or completely satisfied with the care plan, and 90% or more agreed that it was useful, it was easy to understand, and the length was appropriate. Most patients reported that the care plan was very or critically important to understanding an array of survivorship issues. However, only about half felt that it helped them better understand the roles of primary care providers and oncologists in survivorship care. The results provide evidence that patients with cancer find high value in personalized survivorship care plans, but the plans do not eliminate confusion regarding the coordination of follow-up care. Future efforts to improve care plans should focus on better descriptions of how survivorship care will be coordinated.

The impact of cancer diagnosis on employment: is there a difference between rural and urban populations?

PURPOSE

To determine if living in a rural or urban area influences the impact of cancer diagnosis on employment.

METHOD

Surveys that asked about changes in employment status related to a cancer diagnosis or treatment were sent to 2,005 cancer survivors enrolled in the Vermont Cancer Survivor Surveillance Registry. Data on cancers were obtained from hospital cancer registries. Respondents indicating that they were working at the time of diagnosis were included in this study for a total of 1,155 participants. Associations between rural or urban residence and changes in employment were assessed by chi-square tests and logistic regression.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant differences in the proportions of rural and urban survivors working fewer hours, experiencing a career change or unable to work. However, a larger proportion of rural than urban patients retired early after their diagnosis (11.1 vs. 7.2%, p = 0.031). There were also fewer rural patients that reported that they went on paid disability during cancer treatment (12.3 vs. 17.0%, p = 0.030).

CONCLUSIONS

While many patients will return to work after treatment for a cancer diagnosis, it appears that rural patients may be less likely to receive paid disability and more likely to retire early. It is possible that rural populations engage in more physically demanding jobs that they are unable to continue after their cancer treatment. Additionally the types of manual labor available in rural areas rarely offer disability benefits, increasing the impact of cancer diagnosis for this population.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

A cancer diagnosis may have a greater impact on employment among rural residents. Cancer programs should recognize this disparity and enhance return to work and disability counseling in patients from rural areas.

Feasibility and acceptability of conducting a randomized clinical trial designed to improve interpretation of screening mammography

PURPOSE

To describe recruitment, enrollment, and participation in a study of US radiologists invited to participate in a randomized controlled trial of two continuing medical education (CME) interventions designed to improve interpretation of screening mammography.

METHODS

We collected recruitment, consent, and intervention-completion information as part of a large study involving radiologists in California, Oregon, Washington, New Mexico, New Hampshire, North Carolina, and Vermont. Consenting radiologists were randomized to receive either a 1-day live, expert-led educational session; to receive a self-paced DVD with similar content; or to a control group (delayed intervention). The impact of the interventions was assessed using a preintervention-postintervention test set design. All activities were institutional review board approved and HIPAA compliant.

RESULTS

Of 403 eligible radiologists, 151 of 403 (37.5%) consented to participate in the trial and 119 of 151 (78.8%) completed the preintervention test set, leaving 119 available for randomization to one of the two intervention groups or to controls. Female radiologists were more likely than male radiologists to consent to and complete the study (P = .03). Consenting radiologists who completed all study activities were more likely to have been interpreting mammography for 10 years or less compared to radiologists who consented and did not complete all study activities or did not consent at all. The live intervention group was more likely to report their intent to change their clinical practice as a result of the intervention compared to those who received the DVD (50% versus 17.6%, P = .02). The majority of participants in both interventions groups felt the interventions were a useful way to receive CME mammography credits.

CONCLUSIONS

Community radiologists found interactive interventions designed to improve interpretative mammography performance acceptable and useful for clinical practice. This suggests CME credits for radiologists should, in part, be for examining practice skills.

Tissue sampling frequency and breast pathology diagnoses following mammography: Time trends and age group analysis from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC)

559

Background: Pathology diagnoses in a well-characterized population of women can be used to identify tissue sampling and diagnosis trends following mammography. Methods: Screening and diagnostic mammography, patient characteristics, and pathology reports from the BCSC performed from 1996-2008 were identified. Diagnosis was based on the most severe pathology interpretation in the same breast within 60 days of a post-mammogram tissue sample. Age, mammogram year and type, breast density, and family history of breast cancer were evaluated for associations with tissue sampling and most severe pathology diagnosis. Results: 4,022,506 mammograms (88.5% screening; 11.5% diagnostic) were performed in 1,288,886 women; 76,567 (1.9%) were followed by tissue sampling (1.2% screening; 7.1% diagnostic). Tissue sampling frequency following diagnostic mammography increased over time in women over 50 but remained stable following screening mammography. The frequency of invasive cancer increased with age and was more common following a diagnostic (29.3%) vs screening (19.8%) mammogram; the frequency of high risk lesions (ADH; lobular neoplasia) was highest in women aged 50-59. For tissue sampling following screening mammograms, the frequency of DCIS increased over time while benign diagnoses decreased. No significant time trends were noted for diagnoses associated with diagnostic mammograms. Women aged 40-59 with dense breasts and a tissue sampling following screening mammogram had a significantly higher frequency of DCIS (40-49: 4.8% vs 3.2%, P< 0.001; 50-59: 7.0% vs 5.7%, P=0.007). Women aged 40-59 with > 1first degree relative with breast cancer vs none that had a tissue sampling following screening mammogram had a significantly higher frequency of invasive cancer (40-49: 11.4% vs 9.4%, p=0.008; 50-59: 19.8% vs 18.2%, p =0.086) and DCIS (40-49: 6.2% vs 4.0%, p< 0.001; 50-59: 8.2% vs 6.2%, p< 0.001). Conclusions: There was an increase in DCIS and a decrease in benign diagnoses in tissues samples after screening mammography over time. No trends were seen following diagnostic mammography. DCIS was also more frequent in women with dense breasts.

Sensitivity and specificity of mammographic screening as practised in Vermont and Norway

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to examine the sensitivity and specificity of screening mammography as performed in Vermont, USA, and Norway.

METHODS

Incident screening data from 1997 to 2003 for female patients aged 50-69 years from the Vermont Breast Cancer Surveillance System (116 996 subsequent screening examinations) and the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program (360 872 subsequent screening examinations) were compared. Sensitivity and specificity estimates for the initial (based on screening mammogram only) and final (screening mammogram plus any further diagnostic imaging) interpretations were directly adjusted for age using 5-year age intervals for the combined Vermont and Norway population, and computed for 1 and 2 years of follow-up, which ended at the time of the next screening mammogram.

RESULTS

For the 1-year follow-up, sensitivities for initial assessments were 82.0%, 88.2% and 92.5% for 1-, 2- and >2-year screening intervals, respectively, in Vermont (p=0.022). For final assessments, the values were 73.6%, 83.3% and 81.2% (p=0.047), respectively. For Norway, sensitivities for initial assessments were 91.0% and 91.3% (p=0.529) for 2- and >2-year intervals, and 90.7% and 91.3%, respectively, for final assessments (p=0.630). Specificity was lower in Vermont than in Norway for each screening interval and for all screening intervals combined, for both initial (90.6% vs 97.8% for all intervals; p<0.001) and final (98.8% vs 99.5% for all intervals; p<0.001) assessments.

CONCLUSION

Our study showed higher sensitivity and specificity in a biennial screening programme with an independent double reading than in a predominantly annual screening program with a single reading.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

This study demonstrates that higher recall rates and lower specificity are not always associated with higher sensitivity of screening mammography. Differences in the screening processes in Norway and Vermont suggest potential areas for improvement in the latter.

Impact of an educational intervention designed to reduce unnecessary recall during screening mammography

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to describe the impact of a tailored Web-based educational program designed to reduce excessive screening mammography recall.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Radiologists enrolled in one of four mammography registries in the United States were invited to take part and were randomly assigned to receive the intervention or to serve as controls. The controls were offered the intervention at the end of the study, and data collection included an assessment of their clinical practice as well. The intervention provided each radiologist with individual audit data for his or her sensitivity, specificity, recall rate, positive predictive value, and cancer detection rate compared to national benchmarks and peer comparisons for the same measures; profiled breast cancer risk in each radiologist's respective patient populations to illustrate how low breast cancer risk is in population-based settings; and evaluated the possible impact of medical malpractice concerns on recall rates. Participants' recall rates from actual practice were evaluated for three time periods: the 9 months before the intervention was delivered to the intervention group (baseline period), the 9 months between the intervention and control groups (T1), and the 9 months after completion of the intervention by the controls (T2). Logistic regression models examining the probability that a mammogram was recalled included indication of intervention versus control and time period (baseline, T1, and T2). Interactions between the groups and time period were also included to determine if the association between time period and the probability of a positive result differed across groups.

RESULTS

Thirty-one radiologists who completed the continuing medical education intervention were included in the adjusted model comparing radiologists in the intervention group (n = 22) to radiologists who completed the intervention in the control group (n = 9). At T1, the intervention group had 12% higher odds of positive mammographic results compared to the controls, after controlling for baseline (odds ratio, 1.12; 95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.27; P = .0569). At T2, a similar association was found, but it was not statistically significant (odds ratio, 1.10; 95% confidence interval, 0.96 to 1.25). No associations were found among radiologists in the control group when comparing those who completed the continuing medical education intervention (n = 9) to those who did not (n = 10). In addition, no associations were found between time period and recall rate among radiologists who set realistic goals.

CONCLUSIONS

This study resulted in a null effect, which may indicate that a single 1-hour intervention is not adequate to change excessive recall among radiologists who undertook the intervention being tested.

Reproducibility of BI-RADS breast density measures among community radiologists: a prospective cohort study

Using data from the Vermont Breast Cancer Surveillance System (VBCSS), we studied the reproducibility of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) breast density among community radiologists interpreting mammograms in a cohort of 11,755 postmenopausal women. Radiologists interpreting two or more film-screen screening or bilateral diagnostic mammograms for the same woman within a 3- to 24-month period during 1996-2006 were eligible. We observed moderate-to-substantial overall intra-rater agreement for use of BI-RADS breast density in clinical practice, with an overall intra-radiologist percent agreement of 77.2% (95% confidence interval (CI), 74.5-79.5%), an overall simple kappa of 0.58 (95% CI, 0.55-0.61), and an overall weighted kappa of 0.70 (95% CI, 0.68-0.73). Agreement exhibited by individual radiologists varied widely, with intra-radiologist percent agreement ranging from 62.1% to 87.4% and simple kappa ranging from 0.19 to 0.69 across individual radiologists. Our findings underscore the need for additional evaluation of the BI-RADS breast density categorization system in clinical practice.

Risk of advanced-stage breast cancer among older women with comorbidities

BACKGROUND

Comorbidities have been suggested influencing mammography use and breast cancer stage at diagnosis. We compared mammography use, and overall and advanced-stage breast cancer rates, among female Medicare beneficiaries with different levels of comorbidity.

METHODS

We used linked Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) and Medicare claims data from 1998 through 2006 to ascertain comorbidities among 149,045 female Medicare beneficiaries ages 67 and older who had mammography. We defined comorbidities as either "unstable" (life-threatening or difficult to control) or "stable" (age-related with potential to affect daily activity) on the basis of claims within 2 years before each mammogram.

RESULTS

Having undergone two mammograms within 30 months was more common in women with stable comorbidities (86%) than in those with unstable (80.3%) or no (80.9%) comorbidities. Overall rates of advanced-stage breast cancer were lower among women with no comorbidities [0.5 per 1,000 mammograms, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.3-0.8] than among those with stable comorbidities (0.8; 95% CI, 0.7-0.9; P = 0.065 compared with no comorbidities) or unstable comorbidities (1.1; 95% CI, 0.9-1.3; P = 0.002 compared with no comorbidities). Among women having undergone two mammograms within 4 to 18 months, those with unstable and stable comorbidities had significantly higher advanced cancer rates than those with no comorbidities (P = 0.004 and P = 0.03, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Comorbidities were associated with more frequent use of mammography but also higher risk of advanced-stage disease at diagnosis among the subset of women who had the most frequent use of mammography.

IMPACT

Future studies need to examine whether specific comorbidities affect clinical progression of breast cancer.

Are radiologists' goals for mammography accuracy consistent with published recommendations?

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Mammography quality assurance programs have been in place for more than a decade. We studied radiologists' self-reported performance goals for accuracy in screening mammography and compared them to published recommendations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A mailed survey of radiologists at mammography registries in seven states within the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) assessed radiologists' performance goals for interpreting screening mammograms. Self-reported goals were compared to published American College of Radiology (ACR) recommended desirable ranges for recall rate, false-positive rate, positive predictive value of biopsy recommendation (PPV2), and cancer detection rate. Radiologists' goals for interpretive accuracy within desirable range were evaluated for associations with their demographic characteristics, clinical experience, and receipt of audit reports.

RESULTS

The survey response rate was 71% (257 of 364 radiologists). The percentage of radiologists reporting goals within desirable ranges was 79% for recall rate, 22% for false-positive rate, 39% for PPV2, and 61% for cancer detection rate. The range of reported goals was 0%-100% for false-positive rate and PPV2. Primary academic affiliation, receiving more hours of breast imaging continuing medical education, and receiving audit reports at least annually were associated with desirable PPV2 goals. Radiologists reporting desirable cancer detection rate goals were more likely to have interpreted mammograms for 10 or more years, and >1000 mammograms per year.

CONCLUSION

Many radiologists report goals for their accuracy when interpreting screening mammograms that fall outside of published desirable benchmarks, particularly for false-positive rate and PPV2, indicating an opportunity for education.

Use of clinical history affects accuracy of interpretive performance of screening mammography

OBJECTIVE

To examine how use of clinical history affects radiologist's interpretation of screening mammography.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Using a self-administered survey and actual interpretive performance, we examined associations between use of clinical history and sensitivity, false-positive rate, recall rate, and positive predictive value, after adjusting for relevant covariates using conditional logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of the 216 radiologists surveyed (63.4%), most radiologists reported usually or always using clinical history when interpreting screening mammography. Compared with radiologists who rarely use clinical history, radiologists who usually or always use it had a higher false-positive rate with younger women (10.7 vs. 9.7), denser breast tissue (10.1 for heterogeneously dense to 10.9 for extremely dense vs. 8.9 for fatty tissue), or longer screening intervals (> prior 5 years) (12.5 vs. 10.5). Effect of current hormone therapy (HT) use on false-positive rate was weaker among radiologists who use clinical history compared with those who did not (P=0.01), resulting in fewer false-positive examinations and a nonsignificant lower sensitivity (79.2 vs. 85.2) among HT users.

CONCLUSION

Interpretive performance appears to be influenced by patient age, breast density, screening interval, and HT use. This influence does not always result in improved interpretive performance.

Are cancer survivors willing to participate in research?

Little is known about the late and long term effects of having survived cancer and its treatments. A cancer survivor registry with a representative longitudinal cohort of survivors from all types of cancers would facilitate the study of these effects. A group of researchers, cancer survivors and cancer registrars used hospital cancer registries to identify cancer survivors diagnosed from 1990 through 2006. All eligible cancer survivors were invited to participate in a cancer survivor registry. We describe our methods for engaging the community, who responded to the invitation and who agreed to participate. We used Chi square tests with a significance level of .05 to assess associations with response and participation rates. We used logistic regression to examine associations with participation after adjustment for the effect of age. Logistic regression was also used to assess the independent effects of those variables that were significantly associated with participation after adjustment for age. Of the 6031 eligible survivors, 55% responded to the invitation. Of those who responded 61% agreed to participate in the cancer survivor registry for an overall participation rate of 33%. Rural residence, less education, full time employment, and lower income were independently related to not participating, but marital status was not associated with participation after adjustment for these variables. It is very difficult to recruit a representative sample of cancer survivors to participate in a cancer survivor registry. More research on how to engage the underserved population (rural residents, less education and lower income) is warranted.

Mammographic interpretive volume and diagnostic mammogram interpretation performance in community practice

PURPOSE

To investigate the association between radiologist interpretive volume and diagnostic mammography performance in community-based settings.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study received institutional review board approval and was HIPAA compliant. A total of 117,136 diagnostic mammograms that were interpreted by 107 radiologists between 2002 and 2006 in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium were included. Logistic regression analysis was used to estimate the adjusted effect on sensitivity and the rates of false-positive findings and cancer detection of four volume measures: annual diagnostic volume, screening volume, total volume, and diagnostic focus (percentage of total volume that is diagnostic). Analyses were stratified by the indication for imaging: additional imaging after screening mammography or evaluation of a breast concern or problem.

RESULTS

Diagnostic volume was associated with sensitivity; the odds of a true-positive finding rose until a diagnostic volume of 1000 mammograms was reached; thereafter, they either leveled off (P < .001 for additional imaging) or decreased (P = .049 for breast concerns or problems) with further volume increases. Diagnostic focus was associated with false-positive rate; the odds of a false-positive finding increased until a diagnostic focus of 20% was reached and decreased thereafter (P < .024 for additional imaging and P < .001 for breast concerns or problems with no self-reported lump). Neither total volume nor screening volume was consistently associated with diagnostic performance.

CONCLUSION

Interpretive volume and diagnostic performance have complex multifaceted relationships. Our results suggest that diagnostic interpretive volume is a key determinant in the development of thresholds for considering a diagnostic mammogram to be abnormal. Current volume regulations do not distinguish between screening and diagnostic mammography, and doing so would likely be challenging.

Comparative effectiveness of digital versus film-screen mammography in community practice in the United States: a cohort study

BACKGROUND

Few studies have examined the comparative effectiveness of digital versus film-screen mammography in U.S. community practice.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether the interpretive performance of digital and film-screen mammography differs.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

Mammography facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.

PARTICIPANTS

329,261 women aged 40 to 79 years underwent 869 286 mammograms (231 034 digital; 638 252 film-screen).

MEASUREMENTS

Invasive cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ diagnosed within 12 months of a digital or film-screen examination and calculation of mammography sensitivity, specificity, cancer detection rates, and tumor outcomes.

RESULTS

Overall, cancer detection rates and tumor characteristics were similar for digital and film-screen mammography, but the sensitivity and specificity of each modality varied by age, tumor characteristics, breast density, and menopausal status. Compared with film-screen mammography, the sensitivity of digital mammography was significantly higher for women aged 60 to 69 years (89.9% vs. 83.0%; P = 0.014) and those with estrogen receptor-negative cancer (78.5% vs. 65.8%; P = 0.016); borderline significantly higher for women aged 40 to 49 years (82.4% vs. 75.6%; P = 0.071), those with extremely dense breasts (83.6% vs. 68.1%; P = 0.051), and pre- or perimenopausal women (87.1% vs. 81.7%; P = 0.057); and borderline significantly lower for women aged 50 to 59 years (80.5% vs. 85.1%; P = 0.097). The specificity of digital and film-screen mammography was similar by decade of age, except for women aged 40 to 49 years (88.0% vs. 89.7%; P < 0.001).

LIMITATION

Statistical power for subgroup analyses was limited.

CONCLUSION

Overall, cancer detection with digital or film-screen mammography is similar in U.S. women aged 50 to 79 years undergoing screening mammography. Women aged 40 to 49 years are more likely to have extremely dense breasts and estrogen receptor-negative tumors; if they are offered mammography screening, they may choose to undergo digital mammography to optimize cancer detection.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Cancer Institute.

Timeliness of follow-up after abnormal screening mammogram: variability of facilities

PURPOSE

To describe the timeliness of follow-up care in community-based settings among women who receive a recommendation for immediate follow-up during the screening mammography process and how follow-up timeliness varies according to facility and facility-level characteristics.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was an institutional review board-approved and HIPAA-compliant study. Screening mammograms obtained from 1996 to 2007 in women 40-80 years old in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium were examined. Inclusion criteria were a recommendation for immediate follow-up at screening, or subsequent imaging, and observed follow-up within 180 days of the recommendation. Recommendations for additional imaging (AI) and biopsy or surgical consultation (BSC) were analyzed separately. The distribution of time to follow-up care was estimated by using the Kaplan-Meier estimator.

RESULTS

Data were available on 214,897 AI recommendations from 118 facilities and 35,622 BSC recommendations from 101 facilities. The median time to subsequent follow-up care after recommendation was 14 days for AI and 16 days for BSC. Approximately 90% of AI follow-up and 81% of BSC follow-up occurred within 30 days. Facilities with higher recall rates tended to have longer AI follow-up times (P < .001). Over the study period, BSC follow-up rates at 15 and 30 days improved (P < .001). Follow-up times varied substantially across facilities. Timely follow-up was associated with larger volumes of the recommended procedures but not notably associated with facility type nor observed facility-level characteristics.

CONCLUSION

Most patients with follow-up returned within 3 weeks of the recommendation.

Effectiveness of computer-aided detection in community mammography practice

BACKGROUND

Computer-aided detection (CAD) is applied during screening mammography for millions of US women annually, although it is uncertain whether CAD improves breast cancer detection when used by community radiologists.

METHODS

We investigated the association between CAD use during film-screen screening mammography and specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive value, cancer detection rates, and prognostic characteristics of breast cancers (stage, size, and node involvement). Records from 684 956 women who received more than 1.6 million film-screen mammograms at Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium facilities in seven states in the United States from 1998 to 2006 were analyzed. We used random-effects logistic regression to estimate associations between CAD and specificity (true-negative examinations among women without breast cancer), sensitivity (true-positive examinations among women with breast cancer diagnosed within 1 year of mammography), and positive predictive value (breast cancer diagnosed after positive mammograms) while adjusting for mammography registry, patient age, time since previous mammography, breast density, use of hormone replacement therapy, and year of examination (1998-2002 vs 2003-2006). All statistical tests were two-sided.

RESULTS

Of 90 total facilities, 25 (27.8%) adopted CAD and used it for an average of 27.5 study months. In adjusted analyses, CAD use was associated with statistically significantly lower specificity (OR = 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.85 to 0.89, P < .001) and positive predictive value (OR = 0.89, 95% CI = 0.80 to 0.99, P = .03). A non-statistically significant increase in overall sensitivity with CAD (OR = 1.06, 95% CI = 0.84 to 1.33, P = .62) was attributed to increased sensitivity for ductal carcinoma in situ (OR = 1.55, 95% CI = 0.83 to 2.91; P = .17), although sensitivity for invasive cancer was similar with or without CAD (OR = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.75 to 1.24; P = .77). CAD was not associated with higher breast cancer detection rates or more favorable stage, size, or lymph node status of invasive breast cancer.

CONCLUSION

CAD use during film-screen screening mammography in the United States is associated with decreased specificity but not with improvement in the detection rate or prognostic characteristics of invasive breast cancer.

Using a tailored web-based intervention to set goals to reduce unnecessary recall

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

To examine whether an intervention strategy consisting of a tailored web-based intervention, which provides individualized audit data with peer comparisons and other data that can affect recall, can assist radiologists in setting goals for reducing unnecessary recall.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In a multisite randomized controlled study, we used a tailored web-based intervention to assess radiologists' ability to set goals to improve interpretive performance. The intervention provided peer comparison audit data, profiled breast cancer risk in each radiologist's respective patient populations, and evaluated the possible impact of medical malpractice concerns. We calculated the percentage of radiologists who would consider changing their recall rates, and examined the specific goals they set to reduce recall rates. We describe characteristics of radiologists who developed realistic goals to reduce their recall rates, and their reactions to the importance of patient risk factors and medical malpractice concerns.

RESULTS

Forty-one of 46 radiologists (89.1%) who started the intervention completed it. Thirty-one (72.1%) indicated they would like to change their recall rates and 30 (69.8%) entered a text response about changing their rates. Sixteen of the 30 (53.3%) radiologists who included a text response set realistic goals that would likely result in reducing unnecessary recall. The actual recall rates of those who set realistic goals were not statistically different from those who did not (13.8% vs. 15.1%, respectively). The majority of selected goals involved re-reviewing cases initially interpreted as Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System category 0. More than half of radiologists who commented on the influence of patient risk (56.3%) indicated that radiologists planned to pay more attention to risk factors, and 100% of participants commented on concerns radiologists have about malpractice with the primary concern (37.5%) being fear of lawsuits.

CONCLUSIONS

Interventions designed to reduce unnecessary recall can succeed in assisting radiologists to develop goals that may ultimately reduce unnecessary recall.

Feasibility and satisfaction with a tailored web-based audit intervention for recalibrating radiologists' thresholds for conducting additional work-up

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

To examine the feasibility of and satisfaction with a tailored web-based intervention designed to decrease radiologists' recommendation of inappropriate additional work-up after a screening mammogram.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We developed a web-based educational intervention designed to reduce inappropriate recall. Radiologists were randomly assigned to participate in an early intervention group or a late (control) intervention group, the latter of which served as a control for a 9-month follow-up period, after which they were invited to participate in the intervention. Intervention content was derived from our prior research and included three modules: 1) an introduction to audit statistics for mammography performance; 2) a review of data showing radiologists' inflated perceptions of medical malpractice risks related to breast imaging, and 3) a review of data on breast cancer risk among women seen in their practices. Embedded within the intervention were individualized audit data for each participating radiologists obtained from the national Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.

RESULTS

Seventy-four radiologists (37.8%; 74/196) consented to the intervention, which was completed by 67.5% (27/40) of those randomized to the early intervention group and 41.2% (14/34) of those randomized to the late (control) group. Thus, a total of 41 (55%) completed the intervention. On average, three log-ins were used to complete the program (range 1-14), which took approximately 1 hour. Ninety-five percent found the program moderately to very helpful in understanding how to calculate basic performance measures. Ninety-three percent found viewing their own performance measures moderately to very helpful, and 83% reported it being moderately to very important to learn that the breast cancer risk in their screening population program was lower than perceived. The percentage of radiologists who reported that the risk of medical malpractice influences their recall rates dropped from 36.3% preintervention to 17.8% after intervention with a similar drop in perceived influence of malpractice risk on their recommendations for breast biopsy (36.4 to 17.3%). More than 75% of radiologists answered the postintervention knowledge questions correctly, and the percent of time spent in breast imaging did not appear to influence responses. The majority (>92%) of participants correctly responded that the target recall rate in the United States is 9%. The mean self-reported recall rates were 13.0 for radiologists spending <40% time in breast imaging and 14.9% for those spending >40% time spent in breast imaging, which was highly correlated with their actual recall rates (0.991; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Radiologists who begin an internet-based tailored intervention designed to help reduce unnecessary recall will likely complete it, although only 55% who consented to the study actually undertook the intervention. Participants found the program useful in helping them understand why their recall rates may be elevated.

Accuracy and outcomes of screening mammography in women with a personal history of early-stage breast cancer

CONTEXT

Women with a personal history of breast cancer (PHBC) are at risk of developing another breast cancer and are recommended for screening mammography. Few high-quality data exist on screening performance in PHBC women.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the accuracy and outcomes of mammography screening in PHBC women relative to screening of similar women without PHBC.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Cohort of PHBC women, mammogram matched to non-PHBC women, screened through facilities (1996-2007) affiliated with the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.

PARTICIPANTS

There were 58,870 screening mammograms in 19,078 women with a history of early-stage (in situ or stage I-II invasive) breast cancer and 58,870 matched (breast density, age group, mammography year, and registry) screening mammograms in 55,315 non-PHBC women.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Mammography accuracy based on final assessment, cancer detection rate, interval cancer rate, and stage at diagnosis.

RESULTS

Within 1 year after screening, 655 cancers were observed in PHBC women (499 invasive, 156 in situ) and 342 cancers (285 invasive, 57 in situ) in non-PHBC women. Screening accuracy and outcomes in PHBC relative to non-PHBC women were cancer rates of 10.5 per 1000 screens (95% CI, 9.7-11.3) vs 5.8 per 1000 screens (95% CI, 5.2-6.4), cancer detection rate of 6.8 per 1000 screens (95% CI, 6.2-7.5) vs 4.4 per 1000 screens (95% CI, 3.9-5.0), interval cancer rate of 3.6 per 1000 screens (95% CI, 3.2-4.1) vs 1.4 per 1000 screens (95% CI, 1.1-1.7), sensitivity 65.4% (95% CI, 61.5%-69.0%) vs 76.5% (95% CI, 71.7%-80.7%), specificity 98.3% (95% CI, 98.2%-98.4%) vs 99.0% (95% CI, 98.9%-99.1%), abnormal mammogram results in 2.3% (95% CI, 2.2%-2.5%) vs 1.4% (95% CI, 1.3%-1.5%) (all comparisons P < .001). Screening sensitivity in PHBC women was higher for detection of in situ cancer (78.7%; 95% CI, 71.4%-84.5%) than invasive cancer (61.1%; 95% CI, 56.6%-65.4%), P < .001; lower in the initial 5 years (60.2%; 95% CI, 54.7%-65.5%) than after 5 years from first cancer (70.8%; 95% CI, 65.4%-75.6%), P = .006; and was similar for detection of ipsilateral cancer (66.3%; 95% CI, 60.3%-71.8%) and contralateral cancer (66.1%; 95% CI, 60.9%-70.9%), P = .96. Screen-detected and interval cancers in women with and without PHBC were predominantly early stage.

CONCLUSION

Mammography screening in PHBC women detects early-stage second breast cancers but has lower sensitivity and higher interval cancer rate, despite more evaluation and higher underlying cancer rate, relative to that in non-PHBC women.

Influence of annual interpretive volume on screening mammography performance in the United States

PURPOSE

To examine whether U.S. radiologists' interpretive volume affects their screening mammography performance.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Annual interpretive volume measures (total, screening, diagnostic, and screening focus [ratio of screening to diagnostic mammograms]) were collected for 120 radiologists in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) who interpreted 783 965 screening mammograms from 2002 to 2006. Volume measures in 1 year were examined by using multivariate logistic regression relative to screening sensitivity, false-positive rates, and cancer detection rate the next year. BCSC registries and the Statistical Coordinating Center received institutional review board approval for active or passive consenting processes and a Federal Certificate of Confidentiality and other protections for participating women, physicians, and facilities. All procedures were compliant with the terms of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.

RESULTS

Mean sensitivity was 85.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 83.7%, 86.6%) and was significantly lower for radiologists with a greater screening focus (P = .023) but did not significantly differ by total (P = .47), screening (P = .33), or diagnostic (P = .23) volume. The mean false-positive rate was 9.1% (95% CI: 8.1%, 10.1%), with rates significantly higher for radiologists who had the lowest total (P = .008) and screening (P = .015) volumes. Radiologists with low diagnostic volume (P = .004 and P = .008) and a greater screening focus (P = .003 and P = .002) had significantly lower false-positive and cancer detection rates, respectively. Median invasive tumor size and proportion of cancers detected at early stages did not vary by volume.

CONCLUSION

Increasing minimum interpretive volume requirements in the United States while adding a minimal requirement for diagnostic interpretation could reduce the number of false-positive work-ups without hindering cancer detection. These results provide detailed associations between mammography volumes and performance for policymakers to consider along with workforce, practice organization, and access issues and radiologist experience when reevaluating requirements.

Communication between patients and providers and informed decision making

Women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) need to comprehend the meaning of the diagnosis and the potential benefits and harms of treatment options. Full and understandable information is a requirement, not an option. However, with DCIS, as with many areas of medicine, a high level of uncertainty about the disease remains. In this article, we define informed medical decision making, review challenges to its implementation, and provide suggestions on how to improve communication with women about the diagnosis and treatment of DCIS.