Disparities in Same-Day Diagnostic Imaging in Breast Cancer Screening: Impact of an Immediate-Read Screening Mammography Program Implemented During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND. The need for second visits between screening mammography and diagnostic imaging contributes to disparities in the time to breast cancer diagnosis. During the COVID-19 pandemic, an immediate-read screening mammography program was implemented to reduce patient visits and decrease time to diagnostic imaging. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to measure the impact of an immediate-read screening program with focus on disparities in same-day diagnostic imaging after abnormal findings are made at screening mammography. METHODS. In May 2020, an immediate-read screening program was implemented whereby a dedicated breast imaging radiologist interpreted all screening mammograms in real time; patients received results before discharge; and efforts were made to perform any recommended diagnostic imaging during the visit (performed by different radiologists). Screening mammographic examinations performed from June 1, 2019, through October 31, 2019 (preimplementation period), and from June 1, 2020, through October 31, 2020 (postimplementation period), were retrospectively identified. Patient characteristics were recorded from the electronic medical record. Multivariable logistic regression models incorporating patient age, race and ethnicity, language, and insurance type were estimated to identify factors associated with same-day diagnostic imaging. Screening metrics were compared between periods. RESULTS. A total of 8222 preimplementation and 7235 postimplementation screening examinations were included; 521 patients had abnormal screening findings before implementation, and 359 after implementation. Before implementation, 14.8% of patients underwent same-day diagnostic imaging after abnormal screening mammograms. This percentage increased to 60.7% after implementation. Before implementation, patients who identified their race as other than White had significantly lower odds than patients who identified their race as White of undergoing same-day diagnostic imaging after receiving abnormal screening results (adjusted odds ratio, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.10-0.86; p = .03). After implementation, the odds of same-day diagnostic imaging were not significantly different between patients of other races and White patients (adjusted odds ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.50-1.71; p = .80). After implementation, there was no significant difference in race and ethnicity between patients who underwent and those who did not undergo same-day diagnostic imaging after receiving abnormal results of screening mammography (p > .05). The rate of abnormal interpretation was significantly lower after than it was before implementation (5.0% vs 6.3%; p < .001). Cancer detection rate and PPV1 (PPV based on positive findings at screening examination) were not significantly different before and after implementation (p > .05). CONCLUSION. Implementation of the immediate-read screening mammography program reduced prior racial and ethnic disparities in same-day diagnostic imaging after abnormal screening mammograms. CLINICAL IMPACT. An immediate-read screening program provides a new paradigm for improved screening mammography workflow that allows more rapid diagnostic workup with reduced disparities in care.

Characterization of True and False Positive Findings on Contrast-Enhanced Mammography.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this paper is to characterize true and false positive findings on contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) and correlate enhancement pattern and method of detection with pathology outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was an IRB-approved retrospective review of diagnostic CEM performed from December 2015 through December 2019 for which biopsy was recommended. Background parenchymal enhancement, tissue density, finding features, pathologic/clinical outcomes, and method of detection were captured. CEM includes low-energy images (LE), similar to standard 2D mammography, and recombined images (RI) that show enhancement. 'MG-detected' findings were identified on mammography or LE. 'RI-detected' findings were identified due to enhancement on RI. The positive predictive value (PPV2) was calculated on a per-case and a per-finding level. Comparisons were performed using Pearson chi-square and Fisher exact tests. RESULTS: One hundred sixty CEM cases with 220 findings were evaluated with a case PPV2 of 58.1%. 32.3% (71/220) of lesions were RI-detected.  The PPV2 of RI-detected enhancement was 40.8% with subanalysis revealing PPV2 of 22.2%, 32%, and 51.4% for foci, NME, and masses, respectively. The PPV2 of MG-detected enhancement was 73.5% with subanalysis revealing PPV2 of 50%, 54.1%, and 83.8% for foci, NME, and masses, respectively. There were 100 false positives findings, 42 of which were RI-detected. CONCLUSION: PPV2 of diagnostic CEM is within the range of other diagnostic breast imaging exams. However false positives remain a challenge, especially for RI-detected findings. Additional efforts to improve specificity of RI-detected findings are worthwhile.