Search all AHRQ sites
SHARE:
AHRQ Research Studies
Sign up: 
AHRQ Research Studies Email updates
Research Studies is a monthly compilation of research articles funded by AHRQ or authored by AHRQ researchers and recently published in journals or newsletters.
Results
1 to 2 of 2 Research Studies Displayed
Kerlikowske K, Su YR, Sprague BL
Association of screening with digital breast tomosynthesis vs digital mammography with risk of interval invasive and advanced breast cancer.
The purpose of this study was to compare digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) with digital mammography to determine whether DBT was correlated with lower rates of internal invasive cancer and advanced breast cancer, taking into consideration breast density and breast cancer risk. From 2011 through 2018, the researchers studied a cohort of 504,427 women between the ages of 40 and 79 who underwent 375,189 screening DBT exams and 1,003,900 screening digital mammography exams, and who were then followed up for cancer diagnoses between 2011 and 2019 after being identified via linkage to state or regional cancer registries. The median age at the time of screening was 58 years (IQR 50-65 years) and the diagnostic screenings took place at 44 Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) facilities in the United States. The study found that among women at low to average risk, or at high risk with almost entirely fatty, scattered fibroglandular densities, or heterogeneously dense breasts, advanced cancer rates were not significantly different for DBT vs digital mammography. There was no significant difference between DBT and digital mammography for interval cancer rates per 1000 exams. Interval invasive cancer rates were also not significantly different among the 413,061 examinations with BCSC 5-year risk of 1.67% or higher (high risk) across breast density categories, or among all the 836,250 examinations with BCSC 5-year risk less than 1.67% (low to average-risk). For the 3.6% of women with extremely dense breasts and at high risk of breast cancer (13,291 examinations in the DBT group and 31,300 in the digital mammography group) advanced cancer rates per 1000 examinations were significantly lower for DBT vs digital mammography, but not for women at low to average risk (10,611 examinations in the DBT group and 37,796 in the digital mammography group). The researchers reported that there was no significant difference in the 96.4% of women with extremely dense breasts not at high risk, heterogeneously dense breasts, or nondense breasts, and concluded that screening with DBT vs digital mammography was associated with a significantly lower risk of advanced breast cancer among the 3.6% of women with extremely dense breasts and at high risk of breast cancer, and was not associated with a significant difference in risk of interval invasive cancer.
Citation:
Kerlikowske K, Su YR, Sprague BL .
Association of screening with digital breast tomosynthesis vs digital mammography with risk of interval invasive and advanced breast cancer.
JAMA 2022 Jun 14;327(22):2220-30. doi: 10.1001/jama.2022.7672..
Keywords:
Cancer: Breast Cancer, Cancer, Screening, Women, Mammogram, Imaging, Risk
Lacson R, Khorasani R, Fiumara K
Collaborative case review: a systems-based approach to patient safety event investigation and analysis.
The objectives of this study were to assess a system-based approach to event investigation and analysis--collaborative case reviews (CCRs)--and to measure impact of clinical specialty on strength of action items prescribed. The institutional review board-approved study describes the program, including a percentage of CCR from an institutional Electronic Safety Reporting System. Findings showed that an integrated multispecialty CCR co-led by the radiology department and an institutional patient safety program was associated with a higher proportion of CCR, stronger action items, and higher action item completion rate versus other hospital departments.
AHRQ-funded; HS024722.
Citation:
Lacson R, Khorasani R, Fiumara K .
Collaborative case review: a systems-based approach to patient safety event investigation and analysis.
J Patient Saf 2022 Mar 1;18(2):e522-e27. doi: 10.1097/pts.0000000000000857..
Keywords:
Patient Safety, Adverse Events, Diagnostic Safety and Quality, Imaging
