Cathy S. Cohen

Recall and detection rates in screening mammography: A review of clinical experience: Implications for practice guidelines

The authors investigated the correlation between recall and detection rates in a group of 10 radiologists who had read a high volume of screening mammograms in an academic institution.

Impact of and Interaction between the Availability of Prior Examinations and DBT on the Interpretation of Negative and Benign Mammograms

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES To assess the interaction between the availability of prior examinations and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in decisions to recall a woman during interpretation of mammograms. MATERIALS AND METHODS Eight radiologists independently interpreted twice 36 mammography examinations, each of which had current and prior full-field digital mammography images (FFDM) and DBT under a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant, institutional review board-approved protocol (written consent waived). During the first reading, three sequential ratings were provided using FFDM only, followed by FFDM + DBT, and then followed by FFDM + DBT + priors. The second reading included FFDM only, then FFDM + priors, and then FFDM + priors + DBT. Twenty-two benign cases clinically recalled, 12 negative/benign examinations (not recalled), and two verified cancer cases were included. Recall recommendations and interaction between the effect of priors and DBT on decisions were assessed (P = .05 significance level) using generalized linear model (PROC GLIMMIX, SAS, version 9.3; SAS Institute, Cary, NC) accounting for case and reader variability. RESULTS Average recall rates in noncancer cases were significantly reduced (51%; P < .001) with the addition of DBT and with addition of priors (23%; P = .01). In absolute terms, the addition of DBT to FFDM reduced the recall rates from 0.67 to 0.42 and from 0.54 to 0.27 when DBT was available before and after priors, respectively. Recall reductions were from 0.64 to 0.54 and from 0.42 to 0.33 when priors were available before and after DBT, respectively. Regardless of the sequence in presentation, there were no statistically significant interactions between the effect of availability of DBT and priors (P = .80). CONCLUSIONS Availability of both priors and DBT are independent primary factors in reducing recall recommendations during mammographic interpretations.

Preliminary clinical evaluation of a multi-site telemammography system in a screening mammography environment

We evaluated a telemammography system for reviewing and rating screening mammography in a clinical setting. Three remote sites transmitted 306 exams to a central site. Films were digitized at 50 micron pixel dimensions and compressed at a 50:1 ratio. At the central site images were displayed on a workstation with two high-resolution monitors. Five radiologists reviewed and rated the screens without the availability of prior images or additional information indicating: 1) if additional procedures were needed, 2) which breast was involved, and 3) when appropriate, the recommended additional procedures. During the actual clinical interpretation 13.7% (42 cases) of the patients were recalled for additional procedures. During the retrospective review radiologists 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 recommended additional procedures for 26.1%, 29.1%, 36.3%, 45.1%, and 54.2% of the cases, respectively. The agreements between the clinical interpretation and radiologists 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 were 77.8%, 76.1%, 69.0%, 62.7%, and 53.6%, respectively. The exceedingly high percentage of recommended additional procedures using the workstation was attributed to lack of prior images or additional information, the knowledge that case management was not affected, and the observers’ expectation for an enriched case mix.