Search

Background It is important to establish screening mammography performance benchmarks for quality improvement efforts. Purpose To establish performance benchmarks for digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening and evaluate performance trends over time in U.S. community practice. Materials and Methods In this retrospective study, DBT screening examinations were collected from five Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) registries between 2011 and 2018. Performance measures included abnormal interpretation rate (AIR), cancer detection rate (CDR), sensitivity, specificity, and false-negative rate (FNR) and were calculated based on the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, fifth edition, and compared with concurrent BCSC DM screening examinations, previously published BCSC and National Mammography Database benchmarks, and expert opinion acceptable performance ranges. Benchmarks were derived from the distribution of performance measures across radiologists ( n = 84 or n = 73 depending on metric) and were presented as percentiles. Results A total of 896 101 women undergoing 2 301 766 screening examinations (458 175 DBT examinations [median age, 58 years; age range, 18-111 years] and 1 843 591 DM examinations [median age, 58 years; age range, 18-109 years]) were included in this study. DBT screening performance measures were as follows: AIR, 8.3% (95% CI: 7.5, 9.3); CDR per 1000 screens, 5.8 (95% CI: 5.4, 6.1); sensitivity, 87.4% (95% CI: 85.2, 89.4); specificity, 92.2% (95% CI: 91.3, 93.0); and FNR per 1000 screens, 0.8 (95% CI: 0.7, 1.0). When compared with BCSC DM screening examinations from the same time period and previously published BCSC and National Mammography Database performance benchmarks, all performance measures were higher for DBT except sensitivity and FNR, which were similar to concurrent and prior DM performance measures. The following proportions of radiologists achieved acceptable performance ranges with DBT: 97.6% for CDR, 91.8% for sensitivity, 75.0% for AIR, and 74.0% for specificity. Conclusion In U.S. community practice, large proportions of radiologists met acceptable performance ranges for screening performance metrics with DBT. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Lee and Moy in this issue.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic reduced mammography use, potentially delaying breast cancer diagnoses. Purpose To examine breast biopsy recommendations and breast cancers diagnosed before and during the COVID-19 pandemic by mode of detection (screen detected vs symptomatic) and women's characteristics. Materials and Methods In this secondary analysis of prospectively collected data, monthly breast biopsy recommendations after mammography, US, or both with subsequent biopsy performed were examined from 66 facilities of the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium between January 2019 and September 2020. The number of monthly and cumulative biopsies recommended and performed and the number of subsequent cancers diagnosed during the pandemic period (March 2020 to September 2020) were compared with data from the prepandemic period using Wald χ 2 tests. Analyses were stratified by mode of detection and race or ethnicity. Results From January 2019 to September 2020, 17 728 biopsies were recommended and performed, with 6009 cancers diagnosed. From March to September 2020, there were substantially fewer breast biopsy recommendations with cancer diagnoses when compared with the same period in 2019 (1650 recommendations in 2020 vs 2171 recommendations in 2019 [24% fewer], P < .001), predominantly due to fewer screen-detected cancers (722 cancers in 2020 vs 1169 cancers in 2019 [38% fewer], P < .001) versus symptomatic cancers (895 cancers in 2020 vs 965 cancers in 2019 [7% fewer], P = .27). The decrease in cancer diagnoses was largest in Asian (67 diagnoses in 2020 vs 142 diagnoses in 2019 [53% fewer], P = .06) and Hispanic (82 diagnoses in 2020 vs 145 diagnoses in 2019 [43% fewer], P = .13) women, followed by Black women (210 diagnoses in 2020 vs 287 diagnoses in 2019 [27% fewer], P = .21). The decrease was smallest in non-Hispanic White women (1128 diagnoses in 2020 vs 1357 diagnoses in 2019 [17% fewer], P = .09). Conclusion There were substantially fewer breast biopsies with cancer diagnoses during the COVID-19 pandemic from March to September 2020 compared with the same period in 2019, with Asian and Hispanic women experiencing the largest declines, followed by Black women. © RSNA, 2022 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Heller in this issue.

Background Consistency in reporting Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) breast density on mammograms is important because breast density is used for breast cancer risk assessment and is reported directly to women and clinicians to inform decisions about supplemental screening. Purpose To assess the consistency of BI-RADS density reporting between digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and digital mammography (DM) and evaluate density as a breast cancer risk factor when assessed using DM versus DBT. Materials and Methods The Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium is a prospective cohort study of women undergoing mammography with DM or DBT. This secondary analysis included women aged 40-79 years who underwent at least two screening mammography examinations less than 36 months apart. Percentage agreement and κ statistic were estimated for pairs of BI-RADS density assessments. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) of breast density as a risk factor for invasive breast cancer. Results A total of 403 326 pairs of mammograms from 342 149 women were evaluated. There were no significant differences in breast density assessment in pairs consisting of one DM and one DBT examination (57 516 of 74 729 [77%]; κ = 0.64), two DM examinations (238 678 of 301 743 [79%]; κ = 0.67), and two DBT examinations (20 763 of 26 854 [77%]; κ = 0.65). Results were similar when restricting the analyses to pairs read by the same radiologist. The breast cancer HRs for breast density were similar for DM and DBT ( P = .45 for interaction). The HRs for density acquired using DM and DBT, respectively, were 0.55 (95% CI: 0.49, 0.63) and 0.37 (95% CI: 0.21, 0.66) for almost entirely fat, 1.47 (95% CI: 1.37, 1.58) and 1.36 (95% CI: 1.02, 1.82) for heterogeneously dense, and 1.72 (95% CI: 1.54, 1.93) and 2.05 (95% CI: 1.25, 3.36) for extremely dense breasts. Conclusion Radiologist reporting of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System density obtained with digital breast tomosynthesis did not differ from that obtained with digital mammography. © RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Background Since 2007, digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) replaced screen-film mammography. Whether these technologic advances have improved diagnostic performance has, to the knowledge of the authors, not yet been established. Purpose To evaluate the performance and outcomes of surveillance mammography (digital mammography and DBT) performed from 2007 to 2016 in women with a personal history of breast cancer and compare with data from 1996 to 2007 and the performance of digital mammography screening benchmarks. Materials and Methods In this observational cohort study, five Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium registries provided prospectively collected mammography data linked with tumor registry and pathologic outcomes. This study identified asymptomatic women with American Joint Committee on Cancer anatomic stages 0-III primary breast cancer who underwent surveillance mammography from 2007 to 2016. The primary outcome was a second breast cancer diagnosis within 1 year of mammography. Performance measures included the recall rate, cancer detection rate, interval cancer rate, positive predictive value of biopsy recommendation, sensitivity, and specificity. Results Among 32 331 women who underwent 117 971 surveillance mammographic examinations (112 269 digital mammographic examinations and 5702 DBT examinations), the mean age at initial diagnosis was 59 years ± 12 (standard deviation). Of 1418 second breast cancers diagnosed, 998 were surveillance-detected cancers and 420 were interval cancers. The recall rate was 8.8% (10 365 of 117 971; 95% CI: 8.6%, 9.0%), the cancer detection rate was 8.5 per 1000 examinations (998 of 117 971; 95% CI: 8.0, 9.0), the interval cancer rate was 3.6 per 1000 examinations (420 of 117 971; 95% CI: 3.2, 3.9), the positive predictive value of biopsy recommendation was 31.0% (998 of 3220; 95% CI: 29.4%, 32.7%), the sensitivity was 70.4% (998 of 1418; 95% CI: 67.9%, 72.7%), and the specificity was 98.1% (114 331 of 116 553; 95% CI: 98.0%, 98.2%). Compared with previously published studies, interval cancer rate was comparable with rates from 1996 to 2007 in women with a personal history of breast cancer and was higher than the published digital mammography screening benchmarks. Conclusion In transitioning from screen-film to digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis, surveillance mammography performance demonstrated minimal improvement over time and remained inferior to the performance of screening mammography benchmarks. © RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Moy and Gao in this issue.

Background There is growing evidence that digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) results in lower recall rates and higher cancer detection rates when compared with digital mammography. However, whether DBT interpretative performance changes with experience (learning curve effect) is unknown. Purpose To evaluate screening DBT performance by cumulative DBT volume within 2 years after adoption relative to digital mammography (DM) performance 1 year before DBT adoption. Materials and Methods This prospective study included 106 126 DBT and 221 248 DM examinations in 271 362 women (mean age, 57.5 years) from 2010 to 2017 that were interpreted by 104 radiologists from 53 facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate within-radiologist effects of increasing cumulative DBT volume on recall and cancer detection rates relative to DM and was adjusted for examination-level characteristics. Changes were also evaluated by subspecialty and breast density. Results Before DBT adoption, DM recall rate was 10.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 9.5%, 11.4%) and cancer detection rate was 4.0 per 1000 screenings (95% CI: 3.6 per 1000 screenings, 4.5 per 1000 screenings); after DBT adoption, DBT recall rate was lower (9.4%; 95% CI: 8.2%, 10.6%; P = .02) and cancer detection rate was similar (4.6 per 1000 screenings; 95% CI: 4.0 per 1000 screenings, 5.2 per 1000 screenings; P = .12). Relative to DM, DBT recall rate decreased for a cumulative DBT volume of fewer than 400 studies (odds ratio [OR] = 0.83; 95% CI: 0.78, 0.89) and remained lower as volume increased (400-799 studies, OR = 0.8 [95% CI: 0.75, 0.85]; 800-1199 studies, OR = 0.81 [95% CI: 0.76, 0.87]; 1200-1599 studies, OR = 0.78 [95% CI: 0.73, 0.84]; 1600-2000 studies, OR = 0.81 [95% CI: 0.75, 0.88]; P < .001). Improvements were sustained for breast imaging subspecialists (OR range, 0.67-0.85; P < .02) and readers who were not breast imaging specialists (OR range, 0.80-0.85; P < .001). Recall rates decreased more in women with nondense breasts (OR range, 0.68-0.76; P < .001) than in those with dense breasts (OR range, 0.86-0.90; P ≤ .05; P interaction < .001). Cancer detection rates for DM and DBT were similar, regardless of DBT volume (P ≥ .10). Conclusion Early performance improvements after digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) adoption were sustained regardless of DBT volume, radiologist subspecialty, or breast density. © RSNA, 2019 See also the editorial by Hooley in this issue.