ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: While digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) has proven to enhance cancer detection and reduce recall rates (RR), its integration into BreastScreen Australia for screening has been limited, in part due to perceived cost implications. This study aims to assess the cost effectiveness of digital mammography (DM) compared with synthesized mammography and DBT (SM + DBT) in a first round screening context for short-term outcomes. METHODS: Clients recalled for nonspecific density (NSD) as a single lesion by both readers at the Northern Sydney Central Coast BreastScreen service in 2019 were included. Prior images were excluded to simulate first-round screening. Eleven radiologists read DM and synthesized mammography with DBT (SM + DBT) images 4 weeks apart. Recall rates (RR), reading time, and diagnostic parameters were measured, and costs for screen reading and assessment were calculated. RESULT: Among 65 clients studied, 13 were diagnosed with cancer, with concordant cancer recalls. SM + DBT reduced recall rates (RR), increased reading time, maintained cancer detection sensitivity, and significantly improved other diagnostic parameters, particularly false positive rates. Benign biopsy recalls remained equivalent. While SM + DBT screen reading cost was significantly higher than DM (DM AU$890 ± 186 vs SM + DBT AU$1279 ± 265; P < 0.001), the assessment cost (DM AU$29,504 ± 9427 vs SM + DBT AU$18,021 ± 5606; P < 0.001), and combined screen reading and assessment costs were significantly lower (DM AU$30,394 ± 9508 vs SM + DBT AU$19,300 ± 5721; P = 0.001). SM + DBT screen reading and assessment of 65 patients resulted in noteworthy cost savings (AU$11,094), equivalent to assessing 12 additional clients. CONCLUSION: In first round screening, DBT yields significant cost savings by effectively reducing unnecessary recalls to assessment while maintaining diagnostic efficacy.
Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Feasibility Studies , Mammography , Humans , Mammography/methods , Mammography/economics , Female , Breast Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Middle Aged , New South Wales , Early Detection of Cancer/methods , Aged , Sensitivity and Specificity , Mass Screening/methods , Mass Screening/economics , Australia , AdultABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Demand for after-hours radiology services across Australia has been rapidly increasing for many years. Public hospital radiology departments are generally staffed by trainees after hours, often 1-2 doctors. This study reviewed 1 year of after-hours data at a tertiary hospital in Sydney, to determine overall discrepancy rates and factors which influenced the rate of discrepancy after hours. Overall radiology and after-hours case volumes are increasing, and the goal was to ensure that our department practices are within safe limits at current staffing levels. METHODS: After-hours computed tomography scan reports issued by registrars were reviewed over 1 year between 01 January 2019 and 01 January 2020. Data recorded included overall case numbers on each shift, discrepancy rates and rates of clinically significant discrepancy. Caseload was measured by equivalent ascribed reporting time as described by Pitman et al. (2018). RESULTS: There were 10,886 cases reported after hours during the study period and 1,412 discrepancies (13% cases). Of these, 300 (3.7%) were clinically significant. Factors that increased the rate of significant discrepancy included shifts with caseloads greater than 3 h of equivalent consultant reporting time per 8-h shift and the radiology trainee's level of training. The frequency of discrepancy for trauma cases was similar to non-trauma after adjusting for study type; however, the frequency of significant discrepancy was higher. CONCLUSION: In all instances, the rates of discrepancy and clinically significant discrepancy remained well within ranges previously described.
