Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Radiologist Learning Curve

Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background There is growing evidence that digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) results in lower recall rates and higher cancer detection rates when compared with digital mammography. However, whether DBT interpretative performance changes with experience (learning curve effect) is unknown. Purpose To evaluate screening DBT performance by cumulative DBT volume within 2 years after adoption relative to digital mammography (DM) performance 1 year before DBT adoption. Materials and Methods This prospective study included 106 126 DBT and 221 248 DM examinations in 271 362 women (mean age, 57.5 years) from 2010 to 2017 that were interpreted by 104 radiologists from 53 facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate within-radiologist effects of increasing cumulative DBT volume on recall and cancer detection rates relative to DM and was adjusted for examination-level characteristics. Changes were also evaluated by subspecialty and breast density. Results Before DBT adoption, DM recall rate was 10.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 9.5%, 11.4%) and cancer detection rate was 4.0 per 1000 screenings (95% CI: 3.6 per 1000 screenings, 4.5 per 1000 screenings); after DBT adoption, DBT recall rate was lower (9.4%; 95% CI: 8.2%, 10.6%; P = .02) and cancer detection rate was similar (4.6 per 1000 screenings; 95% CI: 4.0 per 1000 screenings, 5.2 per 1000 screenings; P = .12). Relative to DM, DBT recall rate decreased for a cumulative DBT volume of fewer than 400 studies (odds ratio [OR] = 0.83; 95% CI: 0.78, 0.89) and remained lower as volume increased (400-799 studies, OR = 0.8 [95% CI: 0.75, 0.85]; 800-1199 studies, OR = 0.81 [95% CI: 0.76, 0.87]; 1200-1599 studies, OR = 0.78 [95% CI: 0.73, 0.84]; 1600-2000 studies, OR = 0.81 [95% CI: 0.75, 0.88]; P < .001). Improvements were sustained for breast imaging subspecialists (OR range, 0.67-0.85; P < .02) and readers who were not breast imaging specialists (OR range, 0.80-0.85; P < .001). Recall rates decreased more in women with nondense breasts (OR range, 0.68-0.76; P < .001) than in those with dense breasts (OR range, 0.86-0.90; P ≤ .05; P interaction < .001). Cancer detection rates for DM and DBT were similar, regardless of DBT volume (P ≥ .10). Conclusion Early performance improvements after digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) adoption were sustained regardless of DBT volume, radiologist subspecialty, or breast density.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)34-42
Number of pages9
JournalRADIOLOGY
Volume291
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 1 2019

Fingerprint

Learning Curve
Mammography
Odds Ratio
Confidence Intervals
Radiologists
Breast
Neoplasms

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Digital Breast Tomosynthesis : Radiologist Learning Curve. / Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.

In: RADIOLOGY, Vol. 291, No. 1, 01.04.2019, p. 34-42.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium 2019, 'Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Radiologist Learning Curve', RADIOLOGY, vol. 291, no. 1, pp. 34-42. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2019182305
Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. / Digital Breast Tomosynthesis : Radiologist Learning Curve. In: RADIOLOGY. 2019 ; Vol. 291, No. 1. pp. 34-42.
@article{86e46994ce6b4a4589f4bd2d25253b07,
title = "Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Radiologist Learning Curve",
abstract = "Background There is growing evidence that digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) results in lower recall rates and higher cancer detection rates when compared with digital mammography. However, whether DBT interpretative performance changes with experience (learning curve effect) is unknown. Purpose To evaluate screening DBT performance by cumulative DBT volume within 2 years after adoption relative to digital mammography (DM) performance 1 year before DBT adoption. Materials and Methods This prospective study included 106 126 DBT and 221 248 DM examinations in 271 362 women (mean age, 57.5 years) from 2010 to 2017 that were interpreted by 104 radiologists from 53 facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate within-radiologist effects of increasing cumulative DBT volume on recall and cancer detection rates relative to DM and was adjusted for examination-level characteristics. Changes were also evaluated by subspecialty and breast density. Results Before DBT adoption, DM recall rate was 10.4{\%} (95{\%} confidence interval [CI]: 9.5{\%}, 11.4{\%}) and cancer detection rate was 4.0 per 1000 screenings (95{\%} CI: 3.6 per 1000 screenings, 4.5 per 1000 screenings); after DBT adoption, DBT recall rate was lower (9.4{\%}; 95{\%} CI: 8.2{\%}, 10.6{\%}; P = .02) and cancer detection rate was similar (4.6 per 1000 screenings; 95{\%} CI: 4.0 per 1000 screenings, 5.2 per 1000 screenings; P = .12). Relative to DM, DBT recall rate decreased for a cumulative DBT volume of fewer than 400 studies (odds ratio [OR] = 0.83; 95{\%} CI: 0.78, 0.89) and remained lower as volume increased (400-799 studies, OR = 0.8 [95{\%} CI: 0.75, 0.85]; 800-1199 studies, OR = 0.81 [95{\%} CI: 0.76, 0.87]; 1200-1599 studies, OR = 0.78 [95{\%} CI: 0.73, 0.84]; 1600-2000 studies, OR = 0.81 [95{\%} CI: 0.75, 0.88]; P < .001). Improvements were sustained for breast imaging subspecialists (OR range, 0.67-0.85; P < .02) and readers who were not breast imaging specialists (OR range, 0.80-0.85; P < .001). Recall rates decreased more in women with nondense breasts (OR range, 0.68-0.76; P < .001) than in those with dense breasts (OR range, 0.86-0.90; P ≤ .05; P interaction < .001). Cancer detection rates for DM and DBT were similar, regardless of DBT volume (P ≥ .10). Conclusion Early performance improvements after digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) adoption were sustained regardless of DBT volume, radiologist subspecialty, or breast density.",
author = "{Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium} and Miglioretti, {Diana L} and Linn Abraham and Lee, {Christoph I.} and Buist, {Diana S.M.} and Herschorn, {Sally D.} and Sprague, {Brian L.} and Henderson, {Louise M.} and Tosteson, {Anna N.A.} and Karla Kerlikowske",
year = "2019",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1148/radiol.2019182305",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "291",
pages = "34--42",
journal = "Radiology",
issn = "0033-8419",
publisher = "Radiological Society of North America Inc.",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Digital Breast Tomosynthesis

T2 - Radiologist Learning Curve

AU - Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium

AU - Miglioretti, Diana L

AU - Abraham, Linn

AU - Lee, Christoph I.

AU - Buist, Diana S.M.

AU - Herschorn, Sally D.

AU - Sprague, Brian L.

AU - Henderson, Louise M.

AU - Tosteson, Anna N.A.

AU - Kerlikowske, Karla

PY - 2019/4/1

Y1 - 2019/4/1

N2 - Background There is growing evidence that digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) results in lower recall rates and higher cancer detection rates when compared with digital mammography. However, whether DBT interpretative performance changes with experience (learning curve effect) is unknown. Purpose To evaluate screening DBT performance by cumulative DBT volume within 2 years after adoption relative to digital mammography (DM) performance 1 year before DBT adoption. Materials and Methods This prospective study included 106 126 DBT and 221 248 DM examinations in 271 362 women (mean age, 57.5 years) from 2010 to 2017 that were interpreted by 104 radiologists from 53 facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate within-radiologist effects of increasing cumulative DBT volume on recall and cancer detection rates relative to DM and was adjusted for examination-level characteristics. Changes were also evaluated by subspecialty and breast density. Results Before DBT adoption, DM recall rate was 10.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 9.5%, 11.4%) and cancer detection rate was 4.0 per 1000 screenings (95% CI: 3.6 per 1000 screenings, 4.5 per 1000 screenings); after DBT adoption, DBT recall rate was lower (9.4%; 95% CI: 8.2%, 10.6%; P = .02) and cancer detection rate was similar (4.6 per 1000 screenings; 95% CI: 4.0 per 1000 screenings, 5.2 per 1000 screenings; P = .12). Relative to DM, DBT recall rate decreased for a cumulative DBT volume of fewer than 400 studies (odds ratio [OR] = 0.83; 95% CI: 0.78, 0.89) and remained lower as volume increased (400-799 studies, OR = 0.8 [95% CI: 0.75, 0.85]; 800-1199 studies, OR = 0.81 [95% CI: 0.76, 0.87]; 1200-1599 studies, OR = 0.78 [95% CI: 0.73, 0.84]; 1600-2000 studies, OR = 0.81 [95% CI: 0.75, 0.88]; P < .001). Improvements were sustained for breast imaging subspecialists (OR range, 0.67-0.85; P < .02) and readers who were not breast imaging specialists (OR range, 0.80-0.85; P < .001). Recall rates decreased more in women with nondense breasts (OR range, 0.68-0.76; P < .001) than in those with dense breasts (OR range, 0.86-0.90; P ≤ .05; P interaction < .001). Cancer detection rates for DM and DBT were similar, regardless of DBT volume (P ≥ .10). Conclusion Early performance improvements after digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) adoption were sustained regardless of DBT volume, radiologist subspecialty, or breast density.

AB - Background There is growing evidence that digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) results in lower recall rates and higher cancer detection rates when compared with digital mammography. However, whether DBT interpretative performance changes with experience (learning curve effect) is unknown. Purpose To evaluate screening DBT performance by cumulative DBT volume within 2 years after adoption relative to digital mammography (DM) performance 1 year before DBT adoption. Materials and Methods This prospective study included 106 126 DBT and 221 248 DM examinations in 271 362 women (mean age, 57.5 years) from 2010 to 2017 that were interpreted by 104 radiologists from 53 facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate within-radiologist effects of increasing cumulative DBT volume on recall and cancer detection rates relative to DM and was adjusted for examination-level characteristics. Changes were also evaluated by subspecialty and breast density. Results Before DBT adoption, DM recall rate was 10.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 9.5%, 11.4%) and cancer detection rate was 4.0 per 1000 screenings (95% CI: 3.6 per 1000 screenings, 4.5 per 1000 screenings); after DBT adoption, DBT recall rate was lower (9.4%; 95% CI: 8.2%, 10.6%; P = .02) and cancer detection rate was similar (4.6 per 1000 screenings; 95% CI: 4.0 per 1000 screenings, 5.2 per 1000 screenings; P = .12). Relative to DM, DBT recall rate decreased for a cumulative DBT volume of fewer than 400 studies (odds ratio [OR] = 0.83; 95% CI: 0.78, 0.89) and remained lower as volume increased (400-799 studies, OR = 0.8 [95% CI: 0.75, 0.85]; 800-1199 studies, OR = 0.81 [95% CI: 0.76, 0.87]; 1200-1599 studies, OR = 0.78 [95% CI: 0.73, 0.84]; 1600-2000 studies, OR = 0.81 [95% CI: 0.75, 0.88]; P < .001). Improvements were sustained for breast imaging subspecialists (OR range, 0.67-0.85; P < .02) and readers who were not breast imaging specialists (OR range, 0.80-0.85; P < .001). Recall rates decreased more in women with nondense breasts (OR range, 0.68-0.76; P < .001) than in those with dense breasts (OR range, 0.86-0.90; P ≤ .05; P interaction < .001). Cancer detection rates for DM and DBT were similar, regardless of DBT volume (P ≥ .10). Conclusion Early performance improvements after digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) adoption were sustained regardless of DBT volume, radiologist subspecialty, or breast density.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85063615068&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85063615068&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1148/radiol.2019182305

DO - 10.1148/radiol.2019182305

M3 - Article

C2 - 30806595

AN - SCOPUS:85063615068

VL - 291

SP - 34

EP - 42

JO - Radiology

JF - Radiology

SN - 0033-8419

IS - 1

ER -