Digital Breast Tomosynthesis versus Digital Mammography Screening Performance on Successive Screening Rounds from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.

Background Prior cross-sectional studies have observed that breast cancer screening with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) has a lower recall rate and higher cancer detection rate compared with digital mammography (DM). Purpose To evaluate breast cancer screening outcomes with DBT versus DM on successive screening rounds. Materials and Methods In this retrospective cohort study, data from 58 breast imaging facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium were collected. Analysis included women aged 40-79 years undergoing DBT or DM screening from 2011 to 2020. Absolute differences in screening outcomes by modality and screening round were estimated during the study period by using generalized estimating equations with marginal standardization to adjust for differences in women's risk characteristics across modality and round. Results A total of 523 485 DBT examinations (mean age of women, 58.7 years ± 9.7 [SD]) and 1 008 123 DM examinations (mean age, 58.4 years ± 9.8) among 504 863 women were evaluated. DBT and DM recall rates decreased with successive screening round, but absolute recall rates in each round were significantly lower with DBT versus DM (round 1 difference, -3.3% [95% CI: -4.6, -2.1] [P < .001]; round 2 difference, -1.8% [95% CI: -2.9, -0.7] [P = .003]; round 3 or above difference, -1.2% [95% CI: -2.4, -0.1] [P = .03]). DBT had significantly higher cancer detection (difference, 0.6 per 1000 examinations [95% CI: 0.2, 1.1]; P = .009) compared with DM only for round 3 and above. There were no significant differences in interval cancer rate (round 1 difference, 0.00 per 1000 examinations [95% CI: -0.24, 0.30] [P = .96]; round 2 or above difference, 0.04 [95% CI: -0.19, 0.31] [P = .76]) or total advanced cancer rate (round 1 difference, 0.00 per 1000 examinations [95% CI: -0.15, 0.19] [P = .94]; round 2 or above difference, -0.06 [95% CI: -0.18, 0.11] [P = .43]). Conclusion DBT had lower recall rates and could help detect more cancers than DM across three screening rounds, with no difference in interval or advanced cancer rates. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Skaane in this issue.

Clinical risk prediction models and informative cluster size: Assessing the performance of a suicide risk prediction algorithm.

Clinical visit data are clustered within people, which complicates prediction modeling. Cluster size is often informative because people receiving more care are less healthy and at higher risk of poor outcomes. We used data from seven health systems on 1,518,968 outpatient mental health visits from January 1, 2012 to June 30, 2015 to predict suicide attempt within 90 days. We evaluated true performance of prediction models using a prospective validation set of 4,286,495 visits from October 1, 2015 to September 30, 2017. We examined dividing clustered data on the person or visit level for model training and cross-validation and considered a within cluster resampling approach for model estimation. We evaluated optimism by comparing estimated performance from a left-out testing dataset to performance in the prospective dataset. We used two prediction methods, logistic regression with least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) and random forest. The random forest model using a visit-level split for model training and testing was optimistic; it overestimated discrimination (area under the curve, AUC = 0.95 in testing versus 0.84 in prospective validation) and classification accuracy (sensitivity = 0.48 in testing versus 0.19 in prospective validation, 95th percentile cut-off). Logistic regression and random forest models using a person-level split performed well, accurately estimating prospective discrimination and classification: estimated AUCs ranged from 0.85 to 0.87 in testing versus 0.85 in prospective validation, and sensitivity ranged from 0.15 to 0.20 in testing versus 0.17 to 0.19 in prospective validation. Within cluster resampling did not improve performance. We recommend dividing clustered data on the person level, rather than visit level, to ensure strong performance in prospective use and accurate estimation of future performance at the time of model development.

A Bayesian hierarchical model for prediction of latent health states from multiple data sources with application to active surveillance of prostate cancer.

In this article, we present a Bayesian hierarchical model for predicting a latent health state from longitudinal clinical measurements. Model development is motivated by the need to integrate multiple sources of data to improve clinical decisions about whether to remove or irradiate a patient's prostate cancer. Existing modeling approaches are extended to accommodate measurement error in cancer state determinations based on biopsied tissue, clinical measurements possibly not missing at random, and informative partial observation of the true state. The proposed model enables estimation of whether an individual's underlying prostate cancer is aggressive, requiring surgery and/or radiation, or indolent, permitting continued surveillance. These individualized predictions can then be communicated to clinicians and patients to inform decision-making. We demonstrate the model with data from a cohort of low-risk prostate cancer patients at Johns Hopkins University and assess predictive accuracy among a subset for whom true cancer state is observed. Simulation studies confirm model performance and explore the impact of adjusting for informative missingness on true state predictions. R code is provided in an online supplement and at http://github.com/rycoley/prediction-prostate-surveillance.

Estimating effectiveness in HIV prevention trials with a Bayesian hierarchical compound Poisson frailty model.

Inconsistent results in recent HIV prevention trials of pre-exposure prophylactic interventions may be due to heterogeneity in risk among study participants. Intervention effectiveness is most commonly estimated with the Cox model, which compares event times between populations. When heterogeneity is present, this population-level measure underestimates intervention effectiveness for individuals who are at risk. We propose a likelihood-based Bayesian hierarchical model that estimates the individual-level effectiveness of candidate interventions by accounting for heterogeneity in risk with a compound Poisson-distributed frailty term. This model reflects the mechanisms of HIV risk and allows that some participants are not exposed to HIV and, therefore, have no risk of seroconversion during the study. We assess model performance via simulation and apply the model to data from an HIV prevention trial. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Screening Performance of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis vs Digital Mammography in Community Practice by Patient Age, Screening Round, and Breast Density.

Importance: Digital mammography (DM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) are used for routine breast cancer screening. There is minimal evidence on performance outcomes by age, screening round, and breast density in community practice. Objective: To compare DM vs DBT performance by age, baseline vs subsequent screening round, and breast density category. Design, Setting, and Participants: This comparative effectiveness study assessed 1 584 079 screening examinations of women aged 40 to 79 years without prior history of breast cancer, mastectomy, or breast augmentation undergoing screening mammography at 46 participating Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium facilities from January 2010 to April 2018. Exposures: Age, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System breast density category, screening round, and modality. Main Outcomes and Measures: Absolute rates and relative risks (RRs) of screening recall and cancer detection. Results: Of 1 273 492 DM and 310 587 DBT examinations analyzed, 1 028 891 examinations (65.0%) were of white non-Hispanic women; 399 952 women (25.2%) were younger than 50 years; and 671 136 women (42.4%) had heterogeneously dense or extremely dense breasts. Adjusted differences in DM vs DBT performance were largest on baseline examinations: for example, per 1000 baseline examinations in women ages 50 to 59, recall rates decreased from 241 examinations for DM to 204 examinations for DBT (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73-0.98), and cancer detection rates increased from 5.9 with DM to 8.8 with DBT (RR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.10-2.08). On subsequent examinations, women aged 40 to 79 years with heterogeneously dense breasts had improved recall rates and improved cancer detection with DBT. For example, per 1000 examinations in women aged 50 to 59 years, the number of recall examinations decreased from 102 with DM to 93 with DBT (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.84-0.98), and cancer detection increased from 3.7 with DM to 5.3 with DBT (RR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.23-1.64). Women aged 50 to 79 years with scattered fibroglandular density also had improved recall and cancer detection rates with DBT. Women aged 40 to 49 years with scattered fibroglandular density and women aged 50 to 79 years with almost entirely fatty breasts benefited from improved recall rates without change in cancer detection rates. No improvements in recall or cancer detection rates were observed in women with extremely dense breasts on subsequent examinations for any age group. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that improvements in recall and cancer detection rates with DBT were greatest on baseline mammograms. On subsequent screening mammograms, the benefits of DBT varied by age and breast density. Women with extremely dense breasts did not benefit from improved recall or cancer detection with DBT on subsequent screening rounds.