Timeliness of Breast Diagnostic Imaging and Biopsy in Practice: 15 Years of Collecting, Comparing, and Defining Quality Breast Cancer Care.

BACKGROUND: The literature lacks well-established benchmarks for expected time between screening mammogram to diagnostic imaging and then to core needle breast biopsy. METHODS: Timeliness of diagnostic imaging workup was evaluated using aggregate data from 2005 to 2019 submitted to The National Quality Measures for Breast Centers (NQMBC). RESULTS: A total of 419 breast centers submitted data for 1,805,515 patients on the time from screening mammogram to diagnostic imaging. The overall time was 7 days with 75th, 25th, and 10th percentile values of 5, 10, and 13.5 days, respectively. The average time in business days decreased from 9.1 to 7.1 days (p < 0.001) over the study period with the greatest gains in poorest-performing quartiles. Screening centers and centers in the Midwest had significantly shorter time to diagnostic imaging. Time from diagnostic imaging to core needle biopsy was submitted by 406 facilities representing 386,077 patients. The average time was 6 business days, with 75th, 25th, and 10th percentiles of 4, 9, and 13.7 days, respectively. Time to biopsy improved from a mean of 9.0 to 6.3 days (p < 0.001) with the most improvement in the poorest-performing quartiles. Screening centers, centers in the Midwest, and centers in metropolitan areas had significantly shorter time to biopsy. CONCLUSIONS: In a robust dataset, the time from screening mammogram to diagnostic imaging and from diagnostic imaging to biopsy decreased from 2005 to 2019. On average, patients could expect to have diagnostic imaging and biopsies within 1 week of abnormal results. Monitoring and comparing performance with reported data may improve quality in breast care.

Aortic Size and Clinical Care Pathways Before Type A Aortic Dissection.

Patients with aortic enlargement are recommended to undergo serial imaging and clinical follow-up until they reach surgical thresholds. This study aimed to identify aortic diameter and care of patients with aortic imaging before aortic dissection (AD). In a retrospective cohort of AD patients, we evaluated previous imaging results in addition to ordering providers and indications. Imaging was stratified as >1 or <1 year: 62 patients (53% men) had aortic imaging before AD (most recent test: 82% echo, 11% computed tomography, 6% magnetic resonance imaging). Imaging was ordered most frequently by primary care physicians (35%) and cardiologists (39%). The most frequent imaging indications were arrhythmia (11%), dyspnea (10%), before or after aortic valve surgery (8%), chest pain (6%), and aneurysm surveillance in 13%. Of all patients, 94% had aortic diameters below the surgical threshold before the AD. Imaging was performed <1 year before AD in 47% and aortic size was 4.4 ± 0.8 cm in ascending aorta and 4.0 ± 0.8 cm in sinus. In patients whose most recent imaging was >1 year before AD (1,317 ± 1,017 days), the mean ascending aortic diameter was 4.2 ± 0.4 cm. In conclusion, in a series of patients with aortic imaging before AD, the aortic size was far short of surgical thresholds in 94% of the group. In >50%, imaging was last performed >1 year before dissection.

Pathology results of architectural distortion on detected with digital breast tomosynthesis without definite sonographic correlate.

BACKGROUND: Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is a mammographic technique which improves the detection of breast cancer. Architectural distortion of malignancy may be occult on 2D mammography and ultrasound but detected by DBT. METHODS: 110 patients who underwent 116 DBT-guided needle biopsies for architectural distortion were identified between June 2014 and August 2017 and underwent review of medical records. RESULTS: 59 of 116 biopsies (51%) revealed lesions warranting further consideration or excision. These included 21 specimens with invasive carcinoma, 2 ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), 5 atypical ductal hyperplasia, 4 atypical lobular hyperplasia, and 2 other lesions. 46 lesions were excised. Surgical pathology demonstrated 22 malignant lesions (20 invasive carcinomas and 2 DCIS). 11 patients continued surveillance and two patients were lost to follow up. 94 lesions (87%) were not visible on ultrasonography. CONCLUSIONS: DBT-guided biopsy for architectural distortion detected a malignancy in 19% of lesions, demonstrating the importance of pathologic diagnosis for lesions without correlating ultrasound findings.