Cargando…

Prioritizing Screening Mammograms for Immediate Interpretation and Diagnostic Evaluation on the Basis of Risk for Recall

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to develop a prioritization strategy for scheduling immediate screening mammographic interpretation and possible diagnostic evaluation. METHODS: A population-based cohort with screening mammograms performed from 2012 to 2020 at 126 radiology facilities from 7 Breas...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ho, Thao-Quyen H., Bissell, Michael C. S., Lee, Christoph I., Lee, Janie M., Sprague, Brian L., Tosteson, Anna N. A., Wernli, Karen J., Henderson, Louise M., Kerlikowske, Karla, Miglioretti, Diana L.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10044471/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36273501
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2022.09.030
_version_ 1784913361547296768
author Ho, Thao-Quyen H.
Bissell, Michael C. S.
Lee, Christoph I.
Lee, Janie M.
Sprague, Brian L.
Tosteson, Anna N. A.
Wernli, Karen J.
Henderson, Louise M.
Kerlikowske, Karla
Miglioretti, Diana L.
author_facet Ho, Thao-Quyen H.
Bissell, Michael C. S.
Lee, Christoph I.
Lee, Janie M.
Sprague, Brian L.
Tosteson, Anna N. A.
Wernli, Karen J.
Henderson, Louise M.
Kerlikowske, Karla
Miglioretti, Diana L.
author_sort Ho, Thao-Quyen H.
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to develop a prioritization strategy for scheduling immediate screening mammographic interpretation and possible diagnostic evaluation. METHODS: A population-based cohort with screening mammograms performed from 2012 to 2020 at 126 radiology facilities from 7 Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium registries was identified. Classification trees identified combinations of clinical history (age, BI-RADS(®) density, time since prior mammogram, history of false-positive recall or biopsy result), screening modality (digital mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis), and facility characteristics (profit status, location, screening volume, practice type, academic affiliation) that grouped screening mammograms by recall rate, with ≥12/100 considered high and ≥16/100 very high. An efficiency ratio was estimated as the percentage of recalls divided by the percentage of mammograms. RESULTS: The study cohort included 2,674,051 screening mammograms in 925,777 women, with 235,569 recalls. The most important predictor of recall was time since prior mammogram, followed by age, history of false-positive recall, breast density, history of benign biopsy, and screening modality. Recall rates were very high for baseline mammograms (21.3/100; 95% confidence interval, 19.7–23.0) and high for women with ≥5 years since prior mammogram (15.1/100; 95% confidence interval, 14.3–16.1). The 9.2% of mammograms in subgroups with very high and high recall rates accounted for 19.2% of recalls, an efficiency ratio of 2.1 compared with a random approach. Adding women <50 years of age with dense breasts accounted for 20.3% of mammograms and 33.9% of recalls (efficiency ratio = 1.7). Results including facility-level characteristics were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Prioritizing women with baseline mammograms or ≥5 years since prior mammogram for immediate interpretation and possible diagnostic evaluation could considerably reduce the number of women needing to return for diagnostic imaging at another visit.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10044471
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-100444712023-03-28 Prioritizing Screening Mammograms for Immediate Interpretation and Diagnostic Evaluation on the Basis of Risk for Recall Ho, Thao-Quyen H. Bissell, Michael C. S. Lee, Christoph I. Lee, Janie M. Sprague, Brian L. Tosteson, Anna N. A. Wernli, Karen J. Henderson, Louise M. Kerlikowske, Karla Miglioretti, Diana L. J Am Coll Radiol Article PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to develop a prioritization strategy for scheduling immediate screening mammographic interpretation and possible diagnostic evaluation. METHODS: A population-based cohort with screening mammograms performed from 2012 to 2020 at 126 radiology facilities from 7 Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium registries was identified. Classification trees identified combinations of clinical history (age, BI-RADS(®) density, time since prior mammogram, history of false-positive recall or biopsy result), screening modality (digital mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis), and facility characteristics (profit status, location, screening volume, practice type, academic affiliation) that grouped screening mammograms by recall rate, with ≥12/100 considered high and ≥16/100 very high. An efficiency ratio was estimated as the percentage of recalls divided by the percentage of mammograms. RESULTS: The study cohort included 2,674,051 screening mammograms in 925,777 women, with 235,569 recalls. The most important predictor of recall was time since prior mammogram, followed by age, history of false-positive recall, breast density, history of benign biopsy, and screening modality. Recall rates were very high for baseline mammograms (21.3/100; 95% confidence interval, 19.7–23.0) and high for women with ≥5 years since prior mammogram (15.1/100; 95% confidence interval, 14.3–16.1). The 9.2% of mammograms in subgroups with very high and high recall rates accounted for 19.2% of recalls, an efficiency ratio of 2.1 compared with a random approach. Adding women <50 years of age with dense breasts accounted for 20.3% of mammograms and 33.9% of recalls (efficiency ratio = 1.7). Results including facility-level characteristics were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Prioritizing women with baseline mammograms or ≥5 years since prior mammogram for immediate interpretation and possible diagnostic evaluation could considerably reduce the number of women needing to return for diagnostic imaging at another visit. 2023-03 2022-10-20 /pmc/articles/PMC10044471/ /pubmed/36273501 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2022.09.030 Text en https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) ).
spellingShingle Article
Ho, Thao-Quyen H.
Bissell, Michael C. S.
Lee, Christoph I.
Lee, Janie M.
Sprague, Brian L.
Tosteson, Anna N. A.
Wernli, Karen J.
Henderson, Louise M.
Kerlikowske, Karla
Miglioretti, Diana L.
Prioritizing Screening Mammograms for Immediate Interpretation and Diagnostic Evaluation on the Basis of Risk for Recall
title Prioritizing Screening Mammograms for Immediate Interpretation and Diagnostic Evaluation on the Basis of Risk for Recall
title_full Prioritizing Screening Mammograms for Immediate Interpretation and Diagnostic Evaluation on the Basis of Risk for Recall
title_fullStr Prioritizing Screening Mammograms for Immediate Interpretation and Diagnostic Evaluation on the Basis of Risk for Recall
title_full_unstemmed Prioritizing Screening Mammograms for Immediate Interpretation and Diagnostic Evaluation on the Basis of Risk for Recall
title_short Prioritizing Screening Mammograms for Immediate Interpretation and Diagnostic Evaluation on the Basis of Risk for Recall
title_sort prioritizing screening mammograms for immediate interpretation and diagnostic evaluation on the basis of risk for recall
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10044471/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36273501
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2022.09.030
work_keys_str_mv AT hothaoquyenh prioritizingscreeningmammogramsforimmediateinterpretationanddiagnosticevaluationonthebasisofriskforrecall
AT bissellmichaelcs prioritizingscreeningmammogramsforimmediateinterpretationanddiagnosticevaluationonthebasisofriskforrecall
AT leechristophi prioritizingscreeningmammogramsforimmediateinterpretationanddiagnosticevaluationonthebasisofriskforrecall
AT leejaniem prioritizingscreeningmammogramsforimmediateinterpretationanddiagnosticevaluationonthebasisofriskforrecall
AT spraguebrianl prioritizingscreeningmammogramsforimmediateinterpretationanddiagnosticevaluationonthebasisofriskforrecall
AT tostesonannana prioritizingscreeningmammogramsforimmediateinterpretationanddiagnosticevaluationonthebasisofriskforrecall
AT wernlikarenj prioritizingscreeningmammogramsforimmediateinterpretationanddiagnosticevaluationonthebasisofriskforrecall
AT hendersonlouisem prioritizingscreeningmammogramsforimmediateinterpretationanddiagnosticevaluationonthebasisofriskforrecall
AT kerlikowskekarla prioritizingscreeningmammogramsforimmediateinterpretationanddiagnosticevaluationonthebasisofriskforrecall
AT migliorettidianal prioritizingscreeningmammogramsforimmediateinterpretationanddiagnosticevaluationonthebasisofriskforrecall