Strategies for Decreasing Screening Mammography Recall Rates While Maintaining Performance Metrics

Müllen, Lisa A.; Panigrahi, Babita; Hollada, Jacqueline; Panigrahi, Benita; Falomo, Eniola; Harvey, Susan C.

doi:10.1016/j.acra.2017.06.009

Cited by 24 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The PPV1 for all screening mammograms was 5.7%, within the accepted range of screening mammography performance (3-8%), 16 and the false-positive rate of all screening exams was 8.1%, similar to prior published rates (3.3-9.3%). 8,25 Our study has several limitations. First, this was a nonrandomized, retrospective review.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Benefits of digital breast tomosynthesis: A lesion-level analysis

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To compare outcome metrics of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) breast cancer screening with full-field digital mammogram (FFDM); specifically, to compare recall rates by the type of recalled finding, and to assess if screening with DBT versus FFDM changes biopsy recommendations and if the likelihood of malignancy varied by lesion type, if detected on DBT or FFDM screening mammogram. Methods The outcomes of 22,055 FFDM and DBT screening mammograms were retrospectively reviewed. The exams were performed at an academic institution between August 2015 and September 2016. Performance of screening with FFDM versus DBT was compared in terms of recall rate and percentage of recalled lesions resulting in a cancer diagnosis, with subset analyses performed for specific mammographic findings. Results The recall rate was 10.6% for FFDM and 8.0% for DBT ( p < 0.001). Architectural distortion was more likely to be recalled on DBT screening than FFDM ( p = 0.002), and was associated with an increased likelihood of malignancy ( p = 0.008). Asymmetries were less likely to be recalled on DBT than FFDM ( p < 0.001) screening mammogram, but more likely to be recommended for biopsy when detected on DBT. Calcifications more frequently required short-term follow-up or biopsy on both DBT and FFDM. Conclusions DBT screening confers an advantage in detection of architectural distortion representing malignancy. Recall rate of asymmetries are reduced with screening DBT, probably due to reduction of tissue superimposition. Calcifications pose a particularly difficult diagnostic challenge for breast imagers, regardless of screening mammogram type.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Benefits of digital breast tomosynthesis: A lesion-level analysis

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Mullen et al required radiologists to review their own recalled cases (including diagnostic evaluation outcomes and biopsy results) and found recall rates dropped significantly. The addition of a consensus discussion improved metrics further while improving CDR (7).…”

Section: Denise Thigpen MD • Jocelyn Rapelyea Mdmentioning

confidence: 99%

Test Sets and Real-Life Performance: Can One Predict the Other?

Thigpen

Rapelyea

2020

Radiology: Imaging Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Prior studies demonstrate improved performance when radiologists obtain outcomes feedback for their patients having screening mammography [4][5][6][7]. Referencing Feedback Intervention Theory [8], we believed an automated outcomes feedback application could help breast imagers improve their screening performance.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%