TY - JOUR
T1 - Batch Reading and Interrupted Interpretation of Digital Screening Mammograms Without and With Tomosynthesis
AU - Cohen, Ethan O.
AU - Lesslie, Michele
AU - Weaver, Olena
AU - Phalak, Kanchan
AU - Tso, Hilda
AU - Perry, Rachel
AU - Leung, Jessica W.T.
N1 - Funding Information:
We thank the Department of Scientific Publications at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and the staff from the Memorial Hermann Texas Medical Center for their assistance with this article. We also acknowledge support by the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute under award number P30 CA016672.
Funding Information:
We thank the Department of Scientific Publications at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and the staff from the Memorial Hermann Texas Medical Center for their assistance with this article. We also acknowledge support by the National Institutes of Health / National Cancer Institute under award number P30 CA016672 .
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 American College of Radiology
PY - 2021/2
Y1 - 2021/2
N2 - Objective: To compare batch reading and interrupted interpretation for modern screening mammography. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed digital mammograms without and with tomosynthesis that were originally interpreted with batch reading or interrupted interpretation between January 2015 and June 2017. The following performance metrics were compared: recall rate (per 100 examinations), cancer detection rate (per 1,000 examinations), and positive predictive values for recall and biopsy. Results: In all, 9,832 digital mammograms were batch read, yielding a recall rate of 9.98%, cancer detection rate of 4.27, and positive predictive values for recall and biopsy of 4.40% and 35.5%, respectively. There were 49,496 digital mammograms that were read with interrupted interpretation, yielding a recall rate of 11.3%, cancer detection rate of 4.44, and positive predictive values for recall and biopsy of 3.92% and 30.1%, respectively. Of the digital mammograms with tomosynthesis, 7,075 were batch read, yielding a recall rate of 6.98%, cancer detection rate of 5.37, and positive predictive values for recall and biopsy of 7.69% and 38.0%, respectively. Of the digital mammograms with tomosynthesis, 24,380 were read with interrupted interpretation, yielding a recall rate of 8.30%, cancer detection rate of 5.41, and positive predictive values for recall and biopsy of 6.52% and 33.3%, respectively. For both digital mammograms without and with tomosynthesis, recall rates improved with batch reading compared with interrupted interpretation (P <.001), but no significant differences were seen for other metrics. Discussion: Batch reading digital mammograms without and with tomosynthesis improves recall rates while maintaining cancer detection rates and positive predictive values compared with interrupted interpretation.
AB - Objective: To compare batch reading and interrupted interpretation for modern screening mammography. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed digital mammograms without and with tomosynthesis that were originally interpreted with batch reading or interrupted interpretation between January 2015 and June 2017. The following performance metrics were compared: recall rate (per 100 examinations), cancer detection rate (per 1,000 examinations), and positive predictive values for recall and biopsy. Results: In all, 9,832 digital mammograms were batch read, yielding a recall rate of 9.98%, cancer detection rate of 4.27, and positive predictive values for recall and biopsy of 4.40% and 35.5%, respectively. There were 49,496 digital mammograms that were read with interrupted interpretation, yielding a recall rate of 11.3%, cancer detection rate of 4.44, and positive predictive values for recall and biopsy of 3.92% and 30.1%, respectively. Of the digital mammograms with tomosynthesis, 7,075 were batch read, yielding a recall rate of 6.98%, cancer detection rate of 5.37, and positive predictive values for recall and biopsy of 7.69% and 38.0%, respectively. Of the digital mammograms with tomosynthesis, 24,380 were read with interrupted interpretation, yielding a recall rate of 8.30%, cancer detection rate of 5.41, and positive predictive values for recall and biopsy of 6.52% and 33.3%, respectively. For both digital mammograms without and with tomosynthesis, recall rates improved with batch reading compared with interrupted interpretation (P <.001), but no significant differences were seen for other metrics. Discussion: Batch reading digital mammograms without and with tomosynthesis improves recall rates while maintaining cancer detection rates and positive predictive values compared with interrupted interpretation.
KW - Batch reading
KW - breast cancer
KW - breast cancer screening
KW - digital mammography
KW - digital mammography with tomosynthesis
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85091203130&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85091203130&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jacr.2020.07.033
DO - 10.1016/j.jacr.2020.07.033
M3 - Article
C2 - 32861601
AN - SCOPUS:85091203130
SN - 1546-1440
VL - 18
SP - 280
EP - 293
JO - Journal of the American College of Radiology
JF - Journal of the American College of Radiology
IS - 2
ER -