The Adoption and Impact on Performance of an Automated Outcomes Feedback Application for Tomosynthesis Screening Mammography.
prospective_cohort · Level II
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 32707191.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1016/j.jacr.2020.05.036.
- No licence information is recorded for this record.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
To evaluate a tomosynthesis screening mammography automated outcomes feedback application's adoption and impact on performance. This prospective intervention study evaluated a feedback application that provided mammographers subsequent imaging and pathology results for patients that radiologists had personally recalled from screening. Deployed to 13 academic and 5 private practice attending radiologists, adoption was studied from March 29, 2018, to March 20, 2019. Radiologists indicated if reviewed feedback would influence future clinical decisions. For a subset of eight academic radiologists consistently interpreting screening mammograms during the study, performance metrics were compared pre-intervention (January 1, 2016, to September 30, 2017) and post-intervention (October 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018). Abnormal interpretation rate, positive predictive value of biopsies performed, sensitivity, specificity, and cancer detection rate were compared using Pearson's χ<sup>2</sup> test. Logistic regression models were fit, adjusting for age, race, breast density, prior comparison, breast cancer history, and radiologist. The 18 radiologists reviewed 68.5% (1,398 of 2,042) of available feedback cases and indicated that 17.4% of cases (243 of 1,398) could influence future decisions. For the eight academic radiologist subset, after multivariable adjustment with comparison to pre-intervention, average abnormal interpretation rate decreased (from 7.5% to 6.7%, adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.86, P < .01), positive predictive value of biopsies performed increased (from 40.6% to 51.3%, aOR 1.48, P = .011), and specificity increased (from 93.0% to 93.9%, aOR 1.17, P < .01) post-intervention. There was no difference in cancer detection rate per 1,000 examinations (from 5.8 to 6.1, aOR 1.01, P = .91) or sensitivity (from 81.2% to 78.7%, aOR 0.84, P = .47). Radiologists used a screening mammography automated outcomes feedback application. Its use decreased false-positive examinations, without evidence of reduced cancer detection.
Medical subject headings
- Breast Neoplasms
- Mammography