Imaging characteristics of interval cancers detected on Full Field Digital Mammography (FFDM) versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT).

OBJECTIVE: To compare imaging features of interval cancers detected in patients screened with full field digital mammography (FFDM) versus digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). MATERIALS/METHODS: This retrospective observational study consisted of female patients undergoing screening DM or FFDM at an academic medical center and two outpatient imaging facilities between January 2012 and June 2017. A natural language processing algorithm queried breast imaging reports for breast density and BI-RADS category. This was cross-referenced to an institutional breast cancer registry to identify interval cancers. Retrospective consensus review of the cases was done to categorize imaging features of interval cancers on FFDM vs DBT. RESULTS: The rate of interval cancers was comparable in patients screened with FFDM (30/39793) and DBT (29/32180) (p = 0.58). There was no significant difference in the rate, histopathology, or imaging features of interval cancers in patients screened with FFDM versus DBT. The most common mammographic features on diagnostic imaging across both groups was the presence of a mass (13/47). Almost equally common was negative diagnostic mammogram with mass detected only on ultrasound (11/47). The rate of interval cancers detected by high-risk surveillance breast MRI was increased in patients who previously had screening with DBT relative to those who had screening with FFDM (p = 0.0419). CONCLUSION: There is no significant difference in rate of detection, histopathology, or imaging features of interval cancers in patients screened with FFDM versus DBT. However, across both cohorts, the most common features on diagnostic mammogram were either the presence of a mass or a negative mammogram.

The Origins, Evolution, and Spread of Anesthesia Monitoring Standards: From Boston to Across the World.

In the mid-1980s, the anesthesia departments at hospitals affiliated with Harvard Medical School were faced with a challenge: mounting medical malpractice costs. Malpractice insurance was provided by the Controlled Risk Insurance Company (CRICO), a patient safety and medical malpractice insurance company owned by and providing service to the Harvard medical community. CRICO spearheaded an effort to reduce these costs and ultimately found a way to decrease the risks associated with anesthesia. Here, we chronicle events that led to the dramatic changes in medical practice that resulted from the activities of a small group of concerned anesthesiologists at Harvard-affiliated hospitals. We place these events in a historical perspective and explore how other specialties followed this example, and end with current strategies that minimize the risk associated with anesthesia. We conducted interviews with principals who formulated original standards of patient monitoring. In addition, we consulted documents in the public domain and primary source material. Efforts of these pioneers resulted in the establishment of the seminal Harvard-based anesthesia monitoring standards for minimal monitoring. What followed was an unprecedented transformation of the entire field. After the implementation of these standards at Harvard-affiliated hospitals, the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) adopted "Standards for Basic Anesthetic Monitoring" for use during the administration of all anesthetics in the United States. Other nations have since adopted similar guidelines and these practices have resulted in significant improvements in patient safety. Currently, we estimate mortality due to anesthesia in healthy patients to be 1:400,000-perhaps as much as 10 times lower since the early 1980s. What began as an attempt to lower medical malpractice costs in a group of university hospitals became a worldwide effort that resulted in improvements in patient safety. Other specialties have adopted similar measures. Currently, an attitude and appreciation of safety are exemplified by several practices that include among others-the adherence to these patient safety guidelines, simulator training, the promulgation of standards and guidelines by ASA, and the use of a safety checklist before induction of anesthesia.