Rate and Timeliness of Diagnostic Evaluation and Biopsy After Recall From Screening Mammography in the National Mammography Database.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the rate and timeliness of diagnostic resolution after an abnormal screening mammogram in the ACR's National Mammography Database. METHODS: Abnormal screening mammograms (BI-RADS 0 assessment) in the National Mammography Database from January 1, 2008, to December 31, 2021, were retrospectively identified. The rates and timeliness of follow-up with diagnostic evaluation and biopsy were assessed and compared across patient and facility demographics. RESULTS: Among the 2,874,310 screening mammograms reported as abnormal, follow-up was documented in 66.4% (n = 1,909,326). Lower follow-up rates were observed in younger women (59.4% in women < 30 years, 63.2% in women 30-39 years), Black (57.4%) and American Indian (59.5%) women, and women with no breast cancer family history (63.0%). The overall median time to diagnostic evaluation was 9 days. Longer median diagnostic evaluation time was noted in Black (14 days), other or mixed race (14 days), and Hispanic women (13 days). Of the 318,977 recalled screening mammograms recommended for biopsy, 238,556 (74.8%) biopsies were documented. Lower biopsy rates were noted in older women (71.5% in women aged ≥80) and Black (71.5%) and American Indian (52.2%) women. The overall median time from diagnostic evaluation to biopsy was 21 days. Longer median biopsy time was noted in older (23 days aged ≥80), Black (25 days), mixed or other race (26 days), and Hispanic women (23 days), and rural (24 days) or community hospital affiliated facilities (22 days). DISCUSSION: There is variability in the rates and timeliness of diagnostic evaluation and biopsy in women with abnormal screening mammogram. Subsets of women and facilities could benefit from targeted interventions to promote timely diagnostic resolution and biopsy after an abnormal screening mammogram.

Outcomes From More Than 1 Million People Screened for Lung Cancer With Low-Dose CT Imaging.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose CT (LDCT) imaging was recommended in 2013, making approximately 8 million Americans eligible for LCS. The demographic characteristics and outcomes of individuals screened in the United States have not been reported at the population level. RESEARCH QUESTION: What are the outcomes among people screened and entered in the American College of Radiology's Lung Cancer Screening Registry compared with those of trial participants? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a cohort study of individuals undergoing baseline LDCT imaging for LCS between 2015 and 2019. Predictors of adherence to annual screening were computed. LDCT scan interpretations by Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) score, cancer detection rates (CDRs), and stage at diagnosis were compared with National Lung Cancer Screening Trial data. RESULTS: Adherence was 22.3%, and predictors of poor adherence included current smoking status and Hispanic or Black race. On baseline screening, 83% of patients showed negative results and 17% showed positive screening results. The overall CDR was 0.56%. The percentage of people with cancer detected at baseline was higher in the positive Lung-RADS categories at 0.4% for Lung-RADS category 3, 2.6% for Lung-RADS category 4A, 11.1% for Lung-RADS category 4B, and 19.9% for Lung-RADS category 4X. The cancer stage distribution was similar to that observed in the National Lung Cancer Screening Trial, with 53.5% of patients receiving a diagnosis of stage I cancer and 14.3% with stage IV cancer. Underreporting into the registry may have occurred. INTERPRETATION: This study revealed both the positive aspects of CT scan screening for lung cancer and the challenges that remain. Findings on CT imaging were correlated accurately with lung cancer detection using the Lung-RADS system. A significant stage shift toward early-stage lung cancer was present. Adherence to LCS was poor and likely contributes to the lower than expected cancer detection rate, all of which will impact the outcomes of patients undergoing screening for lung cancer.

Characteristics of Persons Screened for Lung Cancer in the United States : A Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) was recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) in 2013, making approximately 8 million Americans eligible for screening. The demographic characteristics and adherence of persons screened in the United States have not been reported at the population level. OBJECTIVE: To define sociodemographic characteristics and adherence among persons screened and entered into the American College of Radiology's Lung Cancer Screening Registry (LCSR). DESIGN: Cohort study. SETTING: United States, 2015 to 2019. PARTICIPANTS: Persons receiving a baseline LDCT for LCS from 3625 facilities reporting to the LCSR. MEASUREMENTS: Age, sex, and smoking status distributions (percentages) were computed among persons who were screened and among respondents in the 2015 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) who were eligible for screening. The prevalence between the LCSR and the NHIS was compared with prevalence ratios (PRs) and 95% CIs. Adherence to annual screening was defined as having a follow-up test within 11 to 15 months of an initial LDCT. RESULTS: Among 1 159 092 persons who were screened, 90.8% (n = 1 052 591) met the USPSTF eligibility criteria. Compared with adults from the NHIS who met the criteria (n = 1257), screening recipients in the LCSR were older (34.7% vs. 44.8% were aged 65 to 74 years; PR, 1.29 [95% CI, 1.20 to 1.39]), more likely to be female (41.8% vs. 48.1%; PR, 1.15 [CI, 1.08 to 1.23]), and more likely to currently smoke (52.3% vs. 61.4%; PR, 1.17 [CI, 1.11 to 1.23]). Only 22.3% had a repeated annual LDCT. If follow-up was extended to 24 months and more than 24 months, 34.3% and 40.3% were adherent, respectively. LIMITATIONS: Underreporting of LCS and missing data may skew demographic characteristics of persons reported to be screened. Underreporting of adherence may result in underestimates of follow-up. CONCLUSION: Approximately 91% of persons who had LCS met USPSTF eligibility criteria. In addition to continuing to target all eligible adults, men, those who formerly smoked, and younger eligible patients may be less likely to be screened. Adherence to annual follow-up screening was poor, potentially limiting screening effectiveness. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Breast Imaging: An Analysis of the National Mammography Database.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to quantify the initial decline and subsequent rebound in breast cancer screening metrics throughout the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: Screening and diagnostic mammographic examinations, biopsies performed, and cancer diagnoses were extracted from the ACR National Mammography Database from March 1, 2019, through May 31, 2021. Patient (race and age) and facility (regional location, community type, and facility type) demographics were collected. Three time periods were used for analysis: pre-COVID-19 (March 1, 2019, to May 31, 2019), peak COVID-19 (March 1, 2020, to May 31, 2020), and COVID-19 recovery (March 1, 2021, to May 31, 2021). Analysis was performed at the facility level and overall between time periods. RESULTS: In total, 5,633,783 screening mammographic studies, 1,282,374 diagnostic mammographic studies, 231,390 biopsies, and 69,657 cancer diagnoses were analyzed. All peak COVID-19 metrics were less than pre-COVID-19 volumes: 36.3% of pre-COVID-19 for screening mammography, 57.9% for diagnostic mammography, 47.3% for biopsies, and 48.7% for cancer diagnoses. There was some rebound during COVID-19 recovery as a percentage of pre-COVID-19 volumes: 85.3% of pre-COVID-19 for screening mammography, 97.8% for diagnostic mammography, 91.5% for biopsies, and 92.0% for cancer diagnoses. Across various metrics, there was a disproportionate negative impact on older women, Asian women, facilities in the Northeast, and facilities affiliated with academic medical centers. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 had the greatest impact on screening mammography volumes, which have not returned to pre-COVID-19 levels. Cancer diagnoses declined significantly in the acute phase and have not fully rebounded, emphasizing the need to increase outreach efforts directed at specific patient population and facility types.

Novel Quality Measure Set: Closing the Completion Loop on Radiology Follow-up Recommendations for Noncritical Actionable Incidental Findings.

BACKGROUND: Care gaps occur when radiology follow-up recommendations are poorly communicated or not completed, resulting in missed or delayed diagnosis potentially leading to worse patient outcomes. This ACR-led initiative assembled a technical expert panel (TEP) to advise development of quality measures intended to improve communication and drive increased completion rates for radiology follow-up recommendations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multistakeholder TEP was assembled to advise the development of quality measures. The project scope, limited to noncritical actionable incidental findings (AIFs), encourages practices to develop and implement systems ensuring appropriate communication and follow-up to completion. RESULTS: A suite of nine measures were developed: four outcome measures include closing the loop on completion of radiology follow-up recommendations for nonemergent AIFs (with pulmonary nodule and abdominal aortic aneurysm use cases) and overall cancer diagnoses. Five process measures address communication and tracking of AIFs: inclusion of available evidence or guidelines informing the recommendation, communication of AIFs to the practice managing ongoing care, identifying when AIFs have been communicated to the patient, and employing tracking and reminder systems for AIFs. CONCLUSION: This ACR-led initiative developed a measure set intended to improve patient outcomes by ensuring that AIFs are appropriately communicated and followed up. The intent of these measures is to focus improvement on specific areas in which gaps in communication and AIF follow-up may occur, prompting systems to devote resources that will identify and implement solutions to improve patient care.

U.S. Diagnostic Reference Levels and Achievable Doses for 10 Pediatric CT Examinations.

Background Diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) and achievable doses (ADs) were developed for the 10 most commonly performed pediatric CT examinations in the United States using the American College of Radiology Dose Index Registry. Purpose To develop robust, current, national DRLs and ADs for the 10 most commonly performed pediatric CT examinations as a function of patient age and size. Materials and Methods Data on 10 pediatric (ie, patients aged 18 years and younger) CT examinations performed between 2016 and 2020 at 1625 facilities were analyzed. For head and neck examinations, dose indexes were analyzed based on patient age; for body examinations, dose indexes were analyzed for patient age and effective diameter. Data from 1 543 535 examinations provided medians for AD and 75th percentiles for DRLs for volume CT dose index (CTDIvol), dose-length product (DLP), and size-specific dose estimate (SSDE). Results Of all facilities analyzed, 66% of the facilities (1068 of 1625) were community hospitals, 16% (264 of 1625) were freestanding centers, 9.5% (154 of 1625) were academic facilities, and 3.5% (57 of 1625) were dedicated children's hospitals. Fifty-two percent of the patients (798 577 of 1 543 535) were boys, and 48% (744 958 of 1 543 535) were girls. The median age of patients was 14 years (boys, 13 years; girls, 15 years). The head was the most frequent anatomy examined with CT (876 655 of 1 543 535 examinations [57%]). For head without contrast material CT examinations, the age-based CTDIvol AD ranged from 19 to 46 mGy, and DRL ranged from 23 to 55 mGy, with both AD and DRL increasing with age. For body examinations, DRLs and ADs for size-based CTDIvol, SSDE, and DLP increased consistently with the patient's effective diameter. Conclusion Diagnostic reference levels and achievable doses as a function of patient age and effective diameter were developed for the 10 most commonly performed CT pediatric examinations using American College of Radiology Dose Index Registry data. These benchmarks can guide CT facilities in adjusting pediatric CT protocols and resultant doses for their patients. © RSNA, 2021 An earlier incorrect version appeared online. This article was corrected on October 29, 2021.

Predicted Cost Savings Achieved by the Radiology Support, Communication and Alignment Network from Reducing Medical Imaging Overutilization in the Medicare Population.

OBJECTIVE: The Radiology Support, Communication and Alignment Network (R-SCAN) is a quality improvement program through which patients, referring clinicians, and radiologists collaborate to improve imaging appropriateness based on Choosing Wisely recommendations and ACR Appropriateness Criteria. R-SCAN was shown previously to increase the odds of obtaining an appropriate, higher patient or diagnostic value, imaging study. In the current study, we aimed to estimate the potential imaging cost savings associated with R-SCAN use for the Medicare population. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The R-SCAN data set was used to determine the proportion of appropriate and lesser value imaging studies performed, as well as the percent change in the total number of imaging studies performed, before and after an R-SCAN educational intervention. Using a separate CMS data set, we then identified the total number of relevant imaging studies and associated total costs using a 5% sample of Medicare beneficiaries in 2017. We applied R-SCAN proportions to the CMS data set to estimate the potential impact of the R-SCAN interventions across a broader Medicare population. RESULTS: We observed a substantial reduction in the costs associated with lesser value imaging in the R-SCAN cohort, totaling $260,000 over 3.5 months. When extrapolated to the Medicare population, the potential cost reductions associated with the decrease in lesser value imaging totaled $433 million yearly. CONCLUSION: If expanded broadly, R-SCAN interventions can result in substantial savings to the Medicare program.

Everything Every Radiologist Always Wanted (and Needs) to Know About Clinical Decision Support.

As of January 2020, clinical decision support needs to be implemented across US health systems for advanced diagnostic imaging services. This article reviews the history, importance, and hurdles of clinical decision support and discusses a few pearls and pitfalls regarding its implementation.

Assessment of the Radiology Support, Communication and Alignment Network to Reduce Medical Imaging Overutilization: A Multipractice Cohort Study.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine whether participation in Radiology Support, Communication and Alignment Network (R-SCAN) results in a reduction of inappropriate imaging in a wide range of real-world clinical environments. METHODS: This quality improvement study used imaging data from 27 US academic and private practices that completed R-SCAN projects between January 25, 2015, and August 8, 2018. Each project consisted of baseline, educational (intervention), and posteducational phases. Baseline and posteducational imaging cases were rated as high, medium, or low value on the basis of validated ACR Appropriateness Criteria®. Four cohorts were generated: a comprehensive cohort that included all eligible practices and three topic-specific cohorts that included practices that completed projects of specific Choosing Wisely topics (pulmonary embolism, adnexal cyst, and low back pain). Changes in the proportion of high-value cases after R-SCAN intervention were assessed for each cohort using generalized estimating equation logistic regression, and changes in the number of low-value cases were analyzed using Poisson regression. RESULTS: Use of R-SCAN in the comprehensive cohort resulted in a greater proportion of high-value imaging cases (from 57% to 79%; odds ratio, 2.69; 95% confidence interval, 1.50-4.86; P = .001) and 345 fewer low-value cases after intervention (incidence rate ratio, 0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.29-0.70; P < .001). Similar changes in proportion of high-value cases and number of low-value cases were found for the pulmonary embolism, adnexal cyst, and low back pain cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: R-SCAN participation was associated with a reduced likelihood of inappropriate imaging and is thus a promising tool to enhance the quality of patient care and promote wise use of health care resources.

A Road Map for Translational Research on Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging: From the 2018 National Institutes of Health/RSNA/ACR/The Academy Workshop.

Advances in machine learning in medical imaging are occurring at a rapid pace in research laboratories both at academic institutions and in industry. Important artificial intelligence (AI) tools for diagnostic imaging include algorithms for disease detection and classification, image optimization, radiation reduction, and workflow enhancement. Although advances in foundational research are occurring rapidly, translation to routine clinical practice has been slower. In August 2018, the National Institutes of Health assembled multiple relevant stakeholders at a public meeting to discuss the current state of knowledge, infrastructure gaps, and challenges to wider implementation. The conclusions of that meeting are summarized in two publications that identify and prioritize initiatives to accelerate foundational and translational research in AI for medical imaging. This publication summarizes key priorities for translational research developed at the workshop including: (1) creating structured AI use cases, defining and highlighting clinical challenges potentially solvable by AI; (2) establishing methods to encourage data sharing for training and testing AI algorithms to promote generalizability to widespread clinical practice and mitigate unintended bias; (3) establishing tools for validation and performance monitoring of AI algorithms to facilitate regulatory approval; and (4) developing standards and common data elements for seamless integration of AI tools into existing clinical workflows. An important goal of the resulting road map is to grow an ecosystem, facilitated by professional societies, industry, and government agencies, that will allow robust collaborations between practicing clinicians and AI researchers to advance foundational and translational research relevant to medical imaging.

Developing Quality Measures for Diagnostic Radiologists: Part 2.

The ACR convened a cross-specialty, multidisciplinary technical expert panel to identify and define new measures for quality improvement. These measures can be included in the ACR's National Radiology Data Registry and potentially used in the CMS quality reporting programs. The technical expert panel was tasked with developing measures that reflect the most rigorous clinical evidence and address areas most in need of performance improvement. The measures described in these articles represent a new phase in the ACR's efforts to develop meaningful measures for radiologists that promote population health through diagnostic accuracy, clinical effectiveness, and care coordination.

Developing Quality Measures for Diagnostic Radiologists: Part 1.

The ACR convened a cross-specialty, multidisciplinary technical expert panel to identify and define new measures for quality improvement. These measures can be included in the ACR's National Radiology Data Registry and potentially used in the CMS quality reporting programs. The technical expert panel was tasked with developing measures that reflect the most rigorous clinical evidence and address areas most in need of performance improvement. The measures described in these articles represent a new phase in the ACR's efforts to develop meaningful measures for radiologists that promote population health through diagnostic accuracy, clinical effectiveness, and care coordination.

Assessing the Recall Rate for Screening Mammography: Comparing the Medicare Hospital Compare Dataset With the National Mammography Database.

OBJECTIVE: High-quality screening mammography has been shown to substantially reduce mortality from breast cancer. Recall rate is a principal performance metric for screening mammography because it directly relates to the rate of false-positive examinations. This study aims to compare the recall rate derived using two sources-the claims-based Hospital Compare (HC) dataset from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services versus the National Mammography Database (NMD) from the American College of Radiology-to understand the implications in pay-for-performance and quality improvement activities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study retrospectively compared the recall rate reported by NMD facilities with that reported in the HC dataset. Site matching was performed by facility name and zip code, followed by manual verification. Scatterplots, correlations, a paired t test, and Bland-Altman analysis were performed to assess association between the two measures. RESULTS: During the period from October 1 to December 1, 2016, 92 facilities were unambiguously matched using 2014-2015 records in both datasets. The recall rates were positively correlated (r = 0.428, p < 0.001), but the mean HC recall rate (8.5% ± 2.86% [SD]) was significantly (p < 0.001) lower than the mean NMD recall rate (10.6% ± 3.90%). CONCLUSION: The NMD and HC are two commonly used datasets for measuring screening mammography recall rate. Although recall rates are correlated at the individual facility level, there are important differences that have implications for quality improvement and pay-for-performance.

Evaluation of Kidney Stones with Reduced-Radiation Dose CT: Progress from 2011-2012 to 2015-2016-Not There Yet.

Purpose To determine if the use of reduced-dose computed tomography (CT) for evaluation of kidney stones increased in 2015-2016 compared with that in 2011-2012, to determine variability in radiation exposure according to facility for this indication, and to establish a current average radiation dose for CT evaluation for kidney stones by querying a national dose registry. Materials and Methods This cross-sectional study was exempt from institutional review board approval. Data were obtained from the American College of Radiology dose registry for CT examinations submitted from July 2015 to June 2016. Study descriptors consistent with single-phase unenhanced CT for evaluation of kidney stones and associated RadLex® Playbook identifiers (RPIDs) were retrospectively identified. Facilities actively submitting data on kidney stone-specific CT examinations were included. Dose metrics including volumetric CT dose index, dose-length product, and size-specific dose estimate, when available, were reported, and a random effects model was run to account for clustering of CT examinations at facilities. A z-ratio was calculated to test for a significant difference between the proportion of reduced-radiation dose CT examinations (defined as those with a dose-length product of 200 mGy · cm or less) performed in 2015-2016 and the proportion performed in 2011-2012. Results Three hundred four study descriptors for kidney stone CT corresponding to data from 328 facilities that submitted 105 334 kidney stone CT examinations were identified. Reduced-dose CT examinations accounted for 8040 of 105 334 (7.6%) CT examinations, a 5.6% increase from the 1010 of 49 903 (2%) examinations in 2011-2012 (P < .001). Mean overall dose-length product was 689 mGy · cm (95% confidence interval: 667, 712), decreased from the mean of 746 mGy · cm observed in 2011-2012. Median facility dose-length product varied up to sevenfold, from less than 200 mGy · cm to greater than 1600 mGy · cm. Conclusion Use of reduced-radiation dose CT for evaluation of kidney stones has increased since 2011-2012, but remains low; variability of radiation dose according to facility continues to be wide. National mean CT radiation exposure for evaluation of renal colic during 2015-2016 decreased relative to 2011-2012 values, but remained well above what is reasonably achievable. © RSNA, 2017.

Improving diagnosis in health care: perspectives from the American College of Radiology.

In September of 2014, the American College of Radiology joined a number of other organizations in sponsoring the 2015 National Academy of Medicine report, Improving Diagnosis In Health Care. Our presentation to the Academy emphasized that although diagnostic errors in imaging are commonly considered to result only from failures in disease detection or misinterpretation of a perceived abnormality, most errors in diagnosis result from failures in information gathering, aggregation, dissemination and ultimately integration of that information into our patients' clinical problems. Diagnostic errors can occur at any point on the continuum of imaging care from when imaging is first considered until results and recommendations are fully understood by our referring physicians and patients. We used the concept of the Imaging Value Chain and the ACR's Imaging 3.0 initiative to illustrate how better information gathering and integration at each step in imaging care can mitigate many of the causes of diagnostic errors. Radiologists are in a unique position to be the aggregators, brokers and disseminators of information critical to making an informed diagnosis, and if radiologists were empowered to use our expertise and informatics tools to manage the entire imaging chain, diagnostic errors would be reduced and patient outcomes improved. Heath care teams should take advantage of radiologists' ability to fully manage information related to medical imaging, and simultaneously, radiologists must be ready to meet these new challenges as health care evolves. The radiology community stands ready work with all stakeholders to design and implement solutions that minimize diagnostic errors.

The health care value transparency movement and its implications for radiology.

The US health care system is in the midst of disruptive changes intended to expand access, improve outcomes, and lower costs. As part of this movement, a growing number of stakeholders have advocated dramatically increasing consumer transparency into the quality and price of health care services. The authors review the general movement toward American health care value transparency within the public, private, and nonprofit sectors, with an emphasis on those initiatives most relevant to radiology. They conclude that radiology, along with other "ancillary services," has been a major focus of early efforts to enhance consumer price transparency. By contrast, radiology as a field remains in the "middle of the pack" with regard to quality transparency. There is thus the danger that radiology value transparency in its current form will stimulate primarily price-based competition, erode provider profit margins, and disincentivize quality. The authors conclude with suggested actions radiologists can take to ensure that a more optimal balance is struck between quality transparency and price transparency, one that will enable true value-based competition among radiologists rather than commoditization.

MRI of the knee and shoulder performed before radiography.

PURPOSE: Available data are limited on the level of adherence to established guidelines for appropriate utilization of MR in musculoskeletal imaging. This study estimates the percentage of MRI examinations for knee and shoulder pain or tendonitis performed without prior radiography, which thus may fall outside the ACR Appropriateness Criteria for the Medicare and commercially insured populations. METHODS: The percentage of MRI examinations for knee and shoulder pain or tendonitis performed without prior radiography was estimated among patients in the Medicare 5% carrier claims limited data set and among commercially insured patients in the Truven Marketscan Treatment Pathways database in 2010. RESULTS: Approximately 28% of all knee MRIs, and 35%-37% of all shoulder MRIs were performed without recent prior radiographs. The extrapolated expense of these potentially unwarranted MRIs in the entire fee-for-service Medicare population was between $20 and $35 million. Between 20% and 23% of patients undergoing knee MRI, and 27%-32% undergoing shoulder MRI, did not have radiographic examination at any point before the MRI in the same calendar year. CONCLUSIONS: MRI performed without prior radiography represents a potential gap in care and should be considered as an area for establishment of performance measures.

Quality and the physician value-based payment program.

In the last decade, there has been a rapidly growing emphasis and imperative for healthcare quality improvement. With the vast number of stakeholders involved, it is reaching a pinnacle of activity and requirements. The federal government has been developing and implementing quality initiatives across the healthcare system spectrum. This article looks at three major programs: the Hospital Value-based Purchasing/Inpatient Quality Reporting Program, Hospital Outpatient Quality Reporting, and the Physician Quality Reporting System /Physician Value-based Payment Modifier. Quality measurement in healthcare will continue to grow and evolve. Current and upcoming programs will expand, change, and likely disappear or morph into variations of themselves.