Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR最新文献

Objective: Mammography and MRI screening typically occur in combination or in alternating sequence. We compared multimodality screening performance accounting for the relative timing of mammography and MRI and overlapping follow-up periods.

Methods: We identified 8,260 screening mammograms performed 2005 to 2017 in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, paired with screening MRIs within ±90 days (combined screening) or 91 to 270 days (alternating screening). Performance for combined screening (cancer detection rate [CDR] per 1,000 examinations and sensitivity) was calculated with 1-year follow-up for each modality, and with a single follow-up period treating the two tests as a single test. Alternating screening performance was calculated with 1-year follow-up for each modality and also with follow-up ending at the next screen if within 1 year (truncated follow-up).

Results: For 3,810 combined screening pairs, CDR per 1,000 screens was 6.8 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.6-10.0) for mammography and 12.3 (95% CI: 9.3-16.4) for MRI as separate tests compared with 13.1 (95% CI: 10.0-17.3) as a single combined test. Sensitivity of each test was 48.1% (35.0%-61.5%) for mammography and 79.7% (95% CI: 67.7%-88.0%) for MRI compared with 96.2% (95% CI: 85.9%-99.0%) for combined screening. For 4,450 alternating screening pairs, mammography CDR per 1,000 screens changed from 3.6 (95% CI: 2.2-5.9) to zero with truncated follow-up; sensitivity was incalculable (denominator = 0). MRI CDR per 1,000 screens changed from 12.1 (95% CI 9.3-15.8) to 11.7 (95% CI: 8.9-15.3) with truncated follow-up; sensitivity changed from 75.0% (95% CI 63.8%-83.6%) to 86.7% (95% CI 75.5%-93.2%).

Discussion: Updating auditing approaches to account for combined and alternating screening sequencing and to address outcome attribution issues arising from overlapping follow-up periods can improve the accuracy of multimodality screening performance evaluation.

Purpose/objective: To share the experience and results of the first cohort of the ACR Mammography Positioning Improvement Collaborative, in which participating sites aimed to increase the mean percentage of screening mammograms meeting the established positioning criteria to 85% or greater and show at least modest evidence of improvement at each site by the end of the improvement program.

Methods: The sites comprising the first cohort of the collaborative were selected on the basis of strength of local leadership support, intra-organizational relationships, access to data and analytic support, and experience with quality improvement initiatives. During the improvement program, participating sites organized their teams, developed goals, gathered data, evaluated their current state, identified key drivers and root causes of their problems, and developed and tested interventions. A standardized image quality scoring system was also established. The impact of the interventions implemented at each site was assessed by tracking the percentage of screening mammograms meeting overall passing criteria over time.

Results: Six organizations were selected to participate as the first cohort, beginning with participation in the improvement program. Interventions developed and implemented at each site during the program resulted in improvement in the average percentage of screening mammograms meeting overall passing criteria per week from a collaborative mean of 51% to 86%, with four of six sites meeting or exceeding the target mean performance of 85% by the end of the improvement program. Afterward, all respondents to the postprogram survey indicated that the program was a positive experience.

Conclusion: Using a structured improvement program within a learning network framework, the first cohort of the collaborative demonstrated that improvement in mammography positioning performance can be achieved at multiple sites simultaneously and validated the hypothesis that local sites' shared experiences, insights, and learnings would not only improve performance but would also build a community of improvers collaborating to create the best experience for technologists, staff, and patients.