Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 18, 2025
Detection of Architectural Distortion in Prior Mammograms via Analysis of Oriented Patterns
Published on: August 30, 2013
Live Mammographic Screening Interpretation Versus Offline Same-Day Screening Interpretation at a Tertiary Cancer
Catherine S Giess1, Andro L Licaros2, Dylan C Kwait3
1Center for Evidence-Based Imaging, Harvard Medical School, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; Deputy Chair, Department of Radiology, Harvard Medical School, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Objectives:
The aim of this study was to compare screening mammography performance metrics for immediate (live) interpretation versus offline interpretation at a cancer center.
Methods:
An institutional review board-approved, retrospective comparison of screening mammography metrics at a cancer center for January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2019 (live period), and September 1, 2020, to March 31, 2022 (offline period), was performed. Before July 2020, screening examinations were interpreted while patients waited (live period), and diagnostic workup was performed concurrently. After the coronavirus disease 2019 shutdown from March to mid-June 2020, offline same-day interpretation was instituted. Patients with abnormal screening results returned for separate diagnostic evaluation. Screening metrics of positive predictive value 1 (PPV1), cancer detection rate (CDR), and abnormal interpretation rate (AIR) were compared for 17 radiologists who interpreted during both periods. Statistical significance was assessed using χ2 analysis.
Results:
In the live period, there were 7,105 screenings, 635 recalls, and 51 screen-detected cancers. In the offline period, there were 7,512 screenings, 586 recalls, and 47 screen-detected cancers. Comparison of live screening metrics versus offline metrics produced the following results: AIR, 8.9% (635 of 7,105) versus 7.8% (586 of 7,512) (P = .01); PPV1, 8.0% (51 of 635) versus 8.0% (47 of 586); and CDR, 7.2/1,000 versus 6.3/1,000 (P = .50). When grouped by >10% AIR or <10% AIR for the live period, the >10% AIR group showed a significant decrease in AIR for offline interpretation (from 12.7% to 9.7%, P < .001), whereas the <10% AIR group showed no significant change (from 7.4% to 6.7%, P = .17).
Conclusions:
Conversion to offline screening interpretation from immediate interpretation at a cancer center was associated with lower AIR and similar CDR and PPV1. This effect was seen largely in radiologists with AIR > 10% in the live setting.
More Related Videos
07:13Comparison of Predictive Performance of Three Lymph Node Staging Systems in Colorectal Signet Ring Cell Carcinoma Based on Machine Learning Model
Published on: April 18, 2025
06:03Integrating Augmented Reality Tools in Breast Cancer Related Lymphedema Prognostication and Diagnosis
Published on: February 6, 2020