Purpose To compare screening mammography recall rate, cancer detection rate (CDR), and positive predictive values (PPVs) for digital mammography before and after radiologist experience with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). Materials and Methods This retrospective study was approved by the institutional review board and compliant with HIPAA. The authors reviewed screening mammography audit data obtained from 2009 to 2014, during which 108 276 digital mammographic examinations were performed (50 062 before and 58 214 after experience with DBT). Recall rate, CDR, PPV of positive screening result (PPV), PPV of biopsy recommendation (PPV), and PPV of biopsies performed (PPV) of digital mammography for six radiologists were compared before (2009-2011) and after (2012-2014) experience with DBT. Radiologists worked in both a community setting, in which only digital mammography was available, and in two tertiary breast imaging centers, where they interpreted DBT images starting in 2012. Data were examined by using generalized linear mixed modeling wherein observations were nested for each radiologist over time. P < .05 was considered indicative of a statistically significant difference; 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Results The average recall rate was 6.8% (range, 3.6%-9.7%) before experience with DBT and 7.9% (range, 5.5%-9.5%) after (P = .0316). Before experience with DBT, the recall rate increased only 0.01% for each year from 2009 to 2011 (P = .9727). After experience with DBT, the recall rate increased 0.65% for each year from 2012 to 2014 (P < .0127). CDR increased from 2.5 per 1000 examinations (95% CI: 2.2, 2.9) to 3.5 per 1000 examinations (95% CI: 3.0, 4.0; P = .0203). PPV and PPV increased significantly after experience with DBT, from 26.9% (95% CI: 19.9%, 35.3%) to 36.1% (95% CI: 31.7%, 40.7%; P = .0212) for PPV and from 31.2% (95% CI: 24.0%, 39.3%) to 40.0% (95% CI: 35.5%, 44.6%; P = .0290) for PPV. Conclusion Recall rate, CDR, PPV, and PPV of digital mammography increased after radiologist experience with DBT. RSNA, 2017.

Objective The objective was to evaluate outcomes of mammographic architectural distortion (AD) with and without MRI and US correlates. Methods A retrospective review of unexplained mammographic AD with subsequent MRI from January 1, 2007 to September 30, 2017 was performed using a reader-based study design. Mammographic, MRI, and US features and outcomes were documented. Truth was based on biopsy results or minimum two-year imaging follow-up. Measures of diagnostic accuracy were calculated. Results Fifty-six cases of AD were included: 29 (51.8%) detected on 2D mammogram and 27 (48.2%) detected on digital breast tomosynthesis. Of 35.7% (20/56) with MRI correlate, 40.0% (8/20) were enhancing masses, 55.0% (11/20) were non-mass enhancement (NME), and 5.0% (1/20) were nonenhancing AD. Of eight enhancing masses, 75.0% (6/8) were invasive cancers, and 25.0% (2/8) were high-risk lesions. Of 11 NME, 18.2% (2/11) were ductal carcinoma in situ, 36.4% (4/11) were high-risk lesions, and 45.4% (5/11) were benign. Of 64.3% (36/56) without MRI correlate, 94.4% (34/36) were benign by pathology or follow-up, one (2.8%, 1/36) was a 4-mm focus of invasive cancer with US correlate, and one (1/36, 2.8%) was a high-risk lesion. Of cases without MRI and US correlates, one (3.0%, 1/33) was a high-risk lesion and 97.0% (32/33) were benign. The negative predictive value of mammographic AD without MRI correlate was 97.2% (35/36) and without both MRI and US correlates was 100.0% (33/33). Conclusion Mammographic AD without MRI or US correlate was not cancer in our small cohort and follow-up could be considered, reducing interventions.