The impact of adjunctive tomosynthesis on screening mammography outcomes in two widely diverse radiology practices.

To determine the effect of adjunctive digital breast tomosynthesis screening on dissimilar mammography practices. We compared the outcomes of breast cancer screening with digital mammography versus digital mammography combined with tomosynthesis in two independent breast imaging practices from June 1, 2015, to May 31, 2016. Institution one was a hospital-based academic practice of breast imaging specialists and institution two was a community-based practice with academic affiliation served by general radiologists. Screening mammography was linked to subsequent diagnostic imaging and pathology. Subject characteristics and performance metrics were compared via t test for continuous variables and the chi-square test for categorical variables. A two-sided z test was performed to test modality differences for assessment and pathology subtype. Of the 54 638 women, 54% (n = 29 295) were from institution one and 55% (n = 30 013) underwent digital mammography alone. Women undergoing mammography with tomosynthesis were older (60.8 years vs 56.9 years, P < .001) and had slightly less dense breast composition (P = .001). Performance metrics varied substantially between institutions. At both institutions the biopsy rate, positive predictive value of screening (PPV1 ), and invasive cancer detection rate increased significantly with adjunctive tomosynthesis. At institution one, the biopsy rate increased from 1.4% to 1.9%, the PPV1 from 6.0% to 8.2%, and the invasive cancer detection rate from 3.4 to 4.9/1000 women screened. At institution two, the respective increases were from 0.7% to 1.0%, 5.5% to 11.0%, and 2.3% to 4.1/1000. Tomosynthesis recalled asymmetry less and mass more and resulted in fewer BI-RADS 1 and 2 assessments than screening with mammography alone. Adjunctive tomosynthesis appears to have a consistent impact on breast cancer screening performance metrics despite marked variation in breast imaging practice. Combined tomosynthesis screening has a significantly higher PPV1 , leads to a greater number of biopsies, and detects more invasive cancer than screening with digital mammography.

Can delayed time to referral to a tertiary level urologist with an abnormal PSA level affect subsequent Gleason grade in the opportunistically screened population?

PURPOSE: There is growing conflict in the literature describing the effect of delayed treatment on outcomes following radical prostatectomy. There is also evidence to suggest progression of low-risk prostate cancer to develop higher grades and volumes of prostate cancer during active surveillance. It is unknown as to what affect a delay in referral of those men with abnormal screened-PSA levels have on subsequent Gleason grade. METHODS: We identified 350 men through our rapid access prostate clinic who underwent TRUS biopsy for abnormal age-related PSA and/or abnormal clinical examination. Clinicopathological findings were compared for those with positive versus negative TRUS biopsies, and for those with initial delays in referral (<12 months, 12-18 months, and >18 months). We used ANOVA and Student's t-tests amongst other statistical tools to examine significance of clinical findings. RESULTS: Of the 350 men who underwent TRUS biopsy, those with a delay in referral of 12 months or more were significantly associated with higher PSA titers, clinically palpable disease and likelihood of diagnosis with prostate cancer. A delay of 18 months or more led to a significantly higher risk of being diagnosed with a leading grade 4 prostate cancer, which was further supported using PSA velocity as a diagnostic tool (change >0.4 ng/ml/year). CONCLUSION: We recommend that repeated asymptomatic abnormal age-related PSA readings and/or abnormal clinical examination in the screened population be referred without delay to a urologist for further assessment, enrolment into an active surveillance program or definitive subsequent treatment.