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.

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.

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.

Medicare's Physician Quality Reporting System: early national radiologist experience and near-future performance projections.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to examine radiologists' experiences during the first 4 years of Medicare's national physician pay-for-performance program and project near-future program outcomes for radiologists. METHODS: Medicare Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS) program data from 2007 through 2010 were analyzed, focusing on outcomes and trends for radiologists. Tiered scenario modeling was used to project potential near-future radiologist outcomes as the program transitions from bonuses to penalties. RESULTS: Between 2007 and 2010, PQRS eligible, participating, and incentive-qualifying radiologists increased each year, from 28,899 to 44,026 (+52.3%), 6,237 to 16,770 (+168.9%), and 2,026 to 10,450 (+415.8%), respectively. Mean 2010 incentive bonuses ranged from $2,811.39 for diagnostic radiologists to $12,704.38 for radiation oncologists. Only 23.7% of eligible radiologists (10,450 of 44,026) qualified for incentives in 2010, but this compared favorably with 16.3% for nonradiologists (158,393 of 973,638) (P < .0001) and represented a marked increase from just 2,026 in 2007. Registry reporting more frequently resulted in incentive payments than claims-based reporting (odds ratio, 4.40; 95% confidence interval, 4.03-4.80). Without physician, practice, or program changes, more than 75% of radiologists may face mean penalties of at least $2,654 in 2016, totaling an estimated $111,393,067 for the entire profession. CONCLUSIONS: Only a minority of radiologists successfully qualified for incentives under PQRS, but that number has increased each year. Those using registry (rather than claims-based) reporting systems were more likely to receive bonuses. Physician and practice improvements in documentation and reporting, respectively, will be necessary to avert widespread near-future physician penalties.