Batch Reading and Interrupted Interpretation of Digital Screening Mammograms Without and With Tomosynthesis

Ethan O Cohen; Michele Lesslie; Olena Weaver; Kanchan Phalak; Hilda Tso; Rachel Perry; Jessica W T Leung

doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2020.07.033

Batch Reading and Interrupted Interpretation of Digital Screening Mammograms Without and With Tomosynthesis

J Am Coll Radiol. 2021 Feb;18(2):280-293. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2020.07.033. Epub 2020 Aug 28.

Authors

Ethan O Cohen¹, Michele Lesslie², Olena Weaver³, Kanchan Phalak⁴, Hilda Tso², Rachel Perry², Jessica W T Leung⁵

Affiliations

¹ Faculty Lead of Marketing, Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. Electronic address: ecohen@mdanderson.org.
² Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
³ Director of Bone Densitometry, Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
⁴ Patient Safety Officer, Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
⁵ Deputy Chair, Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.

PMID: 32861601
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2020.07.033

Abstract

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.

Keywords: Batch reading; breast cancer; breast cancer screening; digital mammography; digital mammography with tomosynthesis.

MeSH terms

Breast Neoplasms* / diagnostic imaging
Early Detection of Cancer
Female
Humans
Mammography*
Mass Screening
Reading
Retrospective Studies