Mammographic Screening in Routine Practice: Multisite Study of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Digital Mammography Screenings.

Background The use of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is increasing over digital mammography (DM) following studies demonstrating lower recall rates (RRs) and higher cancer detection rates (CDRs). However, inconsistent interpretation of evidence on the risks and benefits of mammography has resulted in varying screening mammography recommendations. Purpose To evaluate screening outcomes among women in the United States who underwent routine DM or DBT mammographic screening. Materials and Methods This retrospective cohort study included women aged 40-79 years who underwent DM or DBT screening mammograms between January 2014 and December 2020. Outcomes of RR, CDR, positive predictive value of recall (PPV1), biopsy rate, and positive predictive value of biopsy (PPV3) were compared between DM and DBT with use of adjusted multivariable logistic regression models. Results A total of 2 528 063 screening mammograms from 1 100 447 women (mean age, 57 years ± 10 [SD]) were included. In crude analyses, DBT (1 693 727 screening mammograms vs 834 336 DM screening mammograms) demonstrated lower RR (10.3% [95% CI: 10.3, 10.4] for DM vs 8.9% [95% CI: 8.9, 9.0] for DBT; P < .001) and higher CDR (4.5 of 1000 screening mammograms [95% CI: 4.3, 4.6] vs 5.3 of 1000 [95% CI: 5.2, 5.5]; P < .001), PPV1 (4.3% [95% CI: 4.2, 4.5] vs 5.9% [95% CI: 5.7, 6.0]; P < .001), and biopsy rates (14.5 of 1000 screening mammograms [95% CI: 14.2, 14.7] vs 17.6 of 1000 [95% CI: 17.4, 17.8]; P < .001). PPV3 was similar between cohorts (30.0% [95% CI: 29.2, 30.9] for DM vs 29.3% [95% CI: 28.7, 29.9] for DBT; P = .16). After adjustment for age, breast density, site, and index year, associations remained stable with respect to statistical significance. Conclusion Women undergoing digital breast tomosynthesis had improved screening mammography outcomes compared with women who underwent digital mammography. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Bae and Seo in this issue.

Assessment of a Claims-Based ICD-9 and ICD-10 Medication-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw Algorithm in the United States.

PURPOSE: Medication-related osteonecrosis of jaw (MRONJ) is associated with certain drug therapies. Pharmacoepidemiologic studies often rely on electronic healthcare data to assess adverse events following drug exposure. Few studies have developed and validated claims-based MRONJ identification algorithms. This study assessed the performance of claims-based MRONJ algorithms by chart review of potential cases among postmenopausal (PM) women and women with postmenopausal osteoporosis (PMO). METHODS: Among PM and PMO women sourced from a large US commercial health insurance database affiliated with Optum, potential cases were identified by International Classification of Diseases, 9th and 10th Revisions (ICD-9, ICD-10) diagnosis codes; 200 were selected for chart retrieval, with the goal of obtaining 100 charts in each coding era. Procured charts were redacted and then reviewed by an oral surgeon who determined case status. Positive predictive values (PPV) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated overall, by cohorts, and coding eras. Baseline characteristics were assessed. Two potential algorithm refinements were explored: using a restricted set of ICD codes; requiring antibiotic use after MRONJ diagnosis. RESULTS: A total of 1273 potential cases were identified. Of the 200 potential cases selected, 104 (52%) were procured, and six cases were confirmed (PPV 5.8%, 95% CI 2.2, 12.1). Baseline characteristics were largely similar across all strata. Potential algorithm refinements yielded marginal PPV improvement. CONCLUSION: This study identified a small number of confirmed cases, and the resulting PPVs were low, but consistent with reported studies. Potential algorithm refinements yielded minimal improvements. To our knowledge, this study is the first to report on the identification of MRONJ using ICD-10 codes in the US.