The Effect of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Adoption on Facility-Level Breast Cancer Screening Volume

The purpose of this study was to determine whether digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) adoption was associated with a decrease in screening mammography capacity across Breast Cancer Screening Consortium facilities, given concerns about increasing imaging and interpretation times associated with DBT....

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:American journal of roentgenology (1976) 2018-11, Vol.211 (5), p.957-963
Hauptverfasser: Lee, Christoph I, Zhu, Weiwei, Onega, Tracy L, Germino, Jessica, O'Meara, Ellen S, Lehman, Constance D, Henderson, Louise M, Haas, Jennifer S, Kerlikowske, Karla, Sprague, Brian L, Rauscher, Garth H, Tosteson, Anna N A, Alford-Teaster, Jennifer, Wernli, Karen J, Miglioretti, Diana L
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 963
container_issue 5
container_start_page 957
container_title American journal of roentgenology (1976)
container_volume 211
creator Lee, Christoph I
Zhu, Weiwei
Onega, Tracy L
Germino, Jessica
O'Meara, Ellen S
Lehman, Constance D
Henderson, Louise M
Haas, Jennifer S
Kerlikowske, Karla
Sprague, Brian L
Rauscher, Garth H
Tosteson, Anna N A
Alford-Teaster, Jennifer
Wernli, Karen J
Miglioretti, Diana L
description The purpose of this study was to determine whether digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) adoption was associated with a decrease in screening mammography capacity across Breast Cancer Screening Consortium facilities, given concerns about increasing imaging and interpretation times associated with DBT. Facility characteristics and examination volume data were collected prospectively from Breast Cancer Screening Consortium facilities that adopted DBT between 2011 and 2014. Interrupted time series analyses using Poisson regression models in which facility was considered a random effect were used to evaluate differences between monthly screening volumes during the 12-month preadoption period and the 12-month postadoption period (with the two periods separated by a 3-month lag) and to test for changes in month-to-month facility-level screening volume during the preadoption and postadoption periods. Across five regional breast imaging registries, 15 of 83 facilities (18.1%) adopted DBT for screening between 2011 and 2014. Most had no academic affiliation (73.3% [11/15]), were nonprofit (80.0% [12/15]), and were general radiology practices (66.7% [10/15]). Facility-level monthly screening volumes were slightly higher during the postadoption versus preadoption periods (relative risk [RR], 1.09; 95% CI, 1.06-1.11). Monthly screening volumes remained relatively stable within the preadoption period (RR, 1.00 per month; 95% CI 1.00-1.01 per month) and the postadoption period (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 1.00-1.01 per month). In a cohort of facilities with varied characteristics, monthly screening examination volumes did not decrease after DBT adoption.
doi_str_mv 10.2214/AJR.17.19350
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_6438161</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2111154031</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c384t-7dc1899a79ca12babbba62f397c54a0197fc8c655b7e46403521913e14a50dfa3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpVkctr4zAQh0Xp0qaPW89Fxx7qVGPJln0ppOljuwQWutnSm5DlcaJiW6mkFPLf131s6A4Dc5iP3wx8hJwAG6cpiIvJr4cxyDGUPGM7ZASZyBMOAnbJiPEckoLxp31yEMIzY0wWpdwj-5ylA83YiNTzJdKbpkETqWvotV3YqFt65VGHSOeuc2HTxyUGG-ikdqtoXU-HvtXGtjZukhm-4paf6t6gp3-MR-xtv6CPrl13eER-NLoNePw1D8nf25v59Gcy-313P53MEsMLERNZGyjKUsvSaEgrXVWVztOGl9JkQjMoZWMKk2dZJVHkgvEshRI4gtAZqxvND8nlZ-5qXXVYG-yj161aedtpv1FOW_X_prdLtXCvKhe8gByGgLOvAO9e1hii6mww2La6R7cOKoWhsuHyO3r-iRrvQvDYbM8AU-9i1CBGgVQfYgb89PtrW_ifCf4G8j6J-A</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2111154031</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The Effect of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Adoption on Facility-Level Breast Cancer Screening Volume</title><source>American Roentgen Ray Society</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Lee, Christoph I ; Zhu, Weiwei ; Onega, Tracy L ; Germino, Jessica ; O'Meara, Ellen S ; Lehman, Constance D ; Henderson, Louise M ; Haas, Jennifer S ; Kerlikowske, Karla ; Sprague, Brian L ; Rauscher, Garth H ; Tosteson, Anna N A ; Alford-Teaster, Jennifer ; Wernli, Karen J ; Miglioretti, Diana L</creator><creatorcontrib>Lee, Christoph I ; Zhu, Weiwei ; Onega, Tracy L ; Germino, Jessica ; O'Meara, Ellen S ; Lehman, Constance D ; Henderson, Louise M ; Haas, Jennifer S ; Kerlikowske, Karla ; Sprague, Brian L ; Rauscher, Garth H ; Tosteson, Anna N A ; Alford-Teaster, Jennifer ; Wernli, Karen J ; Miglioretti, Diana L</creatorcontrib><description>The purpose of this study was to determine whether digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) adoption was associated with a decrease in screening mammography capacity across Breast Cancer Screening Consortium facilities, given concerns about increasing imaging and interpretation times associated with DBT. Facility characteristics and examination volume data were collected prospectively from Breast Cancer Screening Consortium facilities that adopted DBT between 2011 and 2014. Interrupted time series analyses using Poisson regression models in which facility was considered a random effect were used to evaluate differences between monthly screening volumes during the 12-month preadoption period and the 12-month postadoption period (with the two periods separated by a 3-month lag) and to test for changes in month-to-month facility-level screening volume during the preadoption and postadoption periods. Across five regional breast imaging registries, 15 of 83 facilities (18.1%) adopted DBT for screening between 2011 and 2014. Most had no academic affiliation (73.3% [11/15]), were nonprofit (80.0% [12/15]), and were general radiology practices (66.7% [10/15]). Facility-level monthly screening volumes were slightly higher during the postadoption versus preadoption periods (relative risk [RR], 1.09; 95% CI, 1.06-1.11). Monthly screening volumes remained relatively stable within the preadoption period (RR, 1.00 per month; 95% CI 1.00-1.01 per month) and the postadoption period (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 1.00-1.01 per month). In a cohort of facilities with varied characteristics, monthly screening examination volumes did not decrease after DBT adoption.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0361-803X</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1546-3141</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1546-3141</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.2214/AJR.17.19350</identifier><identifier>PMID: 30235000</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging ; Early Detection of Cancer ; Female ; Humans ; Mammography - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Mass Screening - methods ; Mass Screening - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Middle Aged ; Prospective Studies ; Registries</subject><ispartof>American journal of roentgenology (1976), 2018-11, Vol.211 (5), p.957-963</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c384t-7dc1899a79ca12babbba62f397c54a0197fc8c655b7e46403521913e14a50dfa3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c384t-7dc1899a79ca12babbba62f397c54a0197fc8c655b7e46403521913e14a50dfa3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,4120,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30235000$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Lee, Christoph I</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhu, Weiwei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Onega, Tracy L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Germino, Jessica</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>O'Meara, Ellen S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lehman, Constance D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Henderson, Louise M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Haas, Jennifer S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kerlikowske, Karla</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sprague, Brian L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rauscher, Garth H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tosteson, Anna N A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alford-Teaster, Jennifer</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wernli, Karen J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Miglioretti, Diana L</creatorcontrib><title>The Effect of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Adoption on Facility-Level Breast Cancer Screening Volume</title><title>American journal of roentgenology (1976)</title><addtitle>AJR Am J Roentgenol</addtitle><description>The purpose of this study was to determine whether digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) adoption was associated with a decrease in screening mammography capacity across Breast Cancer Screening Consortium facilities, given concerns about increasing imaging and interpretation times associated with DBT. Facility characteristics and examination volume data were collected prospectively from Breast Cancer Screening Consortium facilities that adopted DBT between 2011 and 2014. Interrupted time series analyses using Poisson regression models in which facility was considered a random effect were used to evaluate differences between monthly screening volumes during the 12-month preadoption period and the 12-month postadoption period (with the two periods separated by a 3-month lag) and to test for changes in month-to-month facility-level screening volume during the preadoption and postadoption periods. Across five regional breast imaging registries, 15 of 83 facilities (18.1%) adopted DBT for screening between 2011 and 2014. Most had no academic affiliation (73.3% [11/15]), were nonprofit (80.0% [12/15]), and were general radiology practices (66.7% [10/15]). Facility-level monthly screening volumes were slightly higher during the postadoption versus preadoption periods (relative risk [RR], 1.09; 95% CI, 1.06-1.11). Monthly screening volumes remained relatively stable within the preadoption period (RR, 1.00 per month; 95% CI 1.00-1.01 per month) and the postadoption period (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 1.00-1.01 per month). In a cohort of facilities with varied characteristics, monthly screening examination volumes did not decrease after DBT adoption.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Early Detection of Cancer</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Mammography - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Mass Screening - methods</subject><subject>Mass Screening - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Registries</subject><issn>0361-803X</issn><issn>1546-3141</issn><issn>1546-3141</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpVkctr4zAQh0Xp0qaPW89Fxx7qVGPJln0ppOljuwQWutnSm5DlcaJiW6mkFPLf131s6A4Dc5iP3wx8hJwAG6cpiIvJr4cxyDGUPGM7ZASZyBMOAnbJiPEckoLxp31yEMIzY0wWpdwj-5ylA83YiNTzJdKbpkETqWvotV3YqFt65VGHSOeuc2HTxyUGG-ikdqtoXU-HvtXGtjZukhm-4paf6t6gp3-MR-xtv6CPrl13eER-NLoNePw1D8nf25v59Gcy-313P53MEsMLERNZGyjKUsvSaEgrXVWVztOGl9JkQjMoZWMKk2dZJVHkgvEshRI4gtAZqxvND8nlZ-5qXXVYG-yj161aedtpv1FOW_X_prdLtXCvKhe8gByGgLOvAO9e1hii6mww2La6R7cOKoWhsuHyO3r-iRrvQvDYbM8AU-9i1CBGgVQfYgb89PtrW_ifCf4G8j6J-A</recordid><startdate>20181101</startdate><enddate>20181101</enddate><creator>Lee, Christoph I</creator><creator>Zhu, Weiwei</creator><creator>Onega, Tracy L</creator><creator>Germino, Jessica</creator><creator>O'Meara, Ellen S</creator><creator>Lehman, Constance D</creator><creator>Henderson, Louise M</creator><creator>Haas, Jennifer S</creator><creator>Kerlikowske, Karla</creator><creator>Sprague, Brian L</creator><creator>Rauscher, Garth H</creator><creator>Tosteson, Anna N A</creator><creator>Alford-Teaster, Jennifer</creator><creator>Wernli, Karen J</creator><creator>Miglioretti, Diana L</creator><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20181101</creationdate><title>The Effect of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Adoption on Facility-Level Breast Cancer Screening Volume</title><author>Lee, Christoph I ; Zhu, Weiwei ; Onega, Tracy L ; Germino, Jessica ; O'Meara, Ellen S ; Lehman, Constance D ; Henderson, Louise M ; Haas, Jennifer S ; Kerlikowske, Karla ; Sprague, Brian L ; Rauscher, Garth H ; Tosteson, Anna N A ; Alford-Teaster, Jennifer ; Wernli, Karen J ; Miglioretti, Diana L</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c384t-7dc1899a79ca12babbba62f397c54a0197fc8c655b7e46403521913e14a50dfa3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Early Detection of Cancer</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Mammography - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Mass Screening - methods</topic><topic>Mass Screening - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Registries</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Lee, Christoph I</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhu, Weiwei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Onega, Tracy L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Germino, Jessica</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>O'Meara, Ellen S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lehman, Constance D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Henderson, Louise M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Haas, Jennifer S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kerlikowske, Karla</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sprague, Brian L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rauscher, Garth H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tosteson, Anna N A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alford-Teaster, Jennifer</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wernli, Karen J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Miglioretti, Diana L</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>American journal of roentgenology (1976)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Lee, Christoph I</au><au>Zhu, Weiwei</au><au>Onega, Tracy L</au><au>Germino, Jessica</au><au>O'Meara, Ellen S</au><au>Lehman, Constance D</au><au>Henderson, Louise M</au><au>Haas, Jennifer S</au><au>Kerlikowske, Karla</au><au>Sprague, Brian L</au><au>Rauscher, Garth H</au><au>Tosteson, Anna N A</au><au>Alford-Teaster, Jennifer</au><au>Wernli, Karen J</au><au>Miglioretti, Diana L</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The Effect of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Adoption on Facility-Level Breast Cancer Screening Volume</atitle><jtitle>American journal of roentgenology (1976)</jtitle><addtitle>AJR Am J Roentgenol</addtitle><date>2018-11-01</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>211</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>957</spage><epage>963</epage><pages>957-963</pages><issn>0361-803X</issn><issn>1546-3141</issn><eissn>1546-3141</eissn><abstract>The purpose of this study was to determine whether digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) adoption was associated with a decrease in screening mammography capacity across Breast Cancer Screening Consortium facilities, given concerns about increasing imaging and interpretation times associated with DBT. Facility characteristics and examination volume data were collected prospectively from Breast Cancer Screening Consortium facilities that adopted DBT between 2011 and 2014. Interrupted time series analyses using Poisson regression models in which facility was considered a random effect were used to evaluate differences between monthly screening volumes during the 12-month preadoption period and the 12-month postadoption period (with the two periods separated by a 3-month lag) and to test for changes in month-to-month facility-level screening volume during the preadoption and postadoption periods. Across five regional breast imaging registries, 15 of 83 facilities (18.1%) adopted DBT for screening between 2011 and 2014. Most had no academic affiliation (73.3% [11/15]), were nonprofit (80.0% [12/15]), and were general radiology practices (66.7% [10/15]). Facility-level monthly screening volumes were slightly higher during the postadoption versus preadoption periods (relative risk [RR], 1.09; 95% CI, 1.06-1.11). Monthly screening volumes remained relatively stable within the preadoption period (RR, 1.00 per month; 95% CI 1.00-1.01 per month) and the postadoption period (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 1.00-1.01 per month). In a cohort of facilities with varied characteristics, monthly screening examination volumes did not decrease after DBT adoption.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pmid>30235000</pmid><doi>10.2214/AJR.17.19350</doi><tpages>7</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0361-803X
ispartof American journal of roentgenology (1976), 2018-11, Vol.211 (5), p.957-963
issn 0361-803X
1546-3141
1546-3141
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_6438161
source American Roentgen Ray Society; MEDLINE; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Adult
Aged
Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging
Early Detection of Cancer
Female
Humans
Mammography - statistics & numerical data
Mass Screening - methods
Mass Screening - statistics & numerical data
Middle Aged
Prospective Studies
Registries
title The Effect of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Adoption on Facility-Level Breast Cancer Screening Volume
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-02T18%3A35%3A16IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20Effect%20of%20Digital%20Breast%20Tomosynthesis%20Adoption%20on%20Facility-Level%20Breast%20Cancer%20Screening%20Volume&rft.jtitle=American%20journal%20of%20roentgenology%20(1976)&rft.au=Lee,%20Christoph%20I&rft.date=2018-11-01&rft.volume=211&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=957&rft.epage=963&rft.pages=957-963&rft.issn=0361-803X&rft.eissn=1546-3141&rft_id=info:doi/10.2214/AJR.17.19350&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2111154031%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2111154031&rft_id=info:pmid/30235000&rfr_iscdi=true