Search

Background: The Epistaxis Severity Score (ESS) is the gold-standard patient-reported outcome measure for evaluating nosebleed severity in patients with hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia (HHT). To date, the ESS has been assessed only for content validity and concurrent validity. Objective: We evaluate the internal consistency and test–retest reliability of the ESS. Materials and Methods: After receiving institutional review board approval, we sent an online survey battery, including the ESS survey, to 305 (39% male) English-speaking HHT patients ≥18 years old at a single center. Of those, 140 (46%) patients completed the battery, and 110/140 (79%) reported epistaxis. Cronbach's alpha and correlation analyses were used to evaluate internal consistency. For the test–retest reliability evaluation, we recruited 69 HHT patients during HHT clinic to complete 2 self-administered ESS surveys 2 weeks apart. Participants also completed a modified Clinical Global Impression-Improvement scale with readministration of the ESS survey. We calculated the intraclass correlation coefficient in a 2-way mixed model with absolute agreement. Results: The ESS survey demonstrated low internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.495), suggesting that it measured multiple unrelated concepts. Factor analysis revealed 3 latent factors with moderate intercorrelation, suggesting the presence of 3 related but distinct constructs underlying the ESS. However, the ESS demonstrated excellent test–retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.955; 95% CI, 0.91-0.98). Conclusion: Although the ESS demonstrates high test–retest reliability, it may not adequately assess different dimensions of nosebleed severity. Additional correlated survey questions and sub-scores may be needed to increase internal consistency to accurately measure each component of epistaxis severity. It is necessary to acknowledge epistaxis severity from different dimensions and to consider evaluating individual ESS items separately for a comprehensive understanding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND. Recall rates are lower for digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) than for full-field digital mammography (FFDM). This difference could have important implications with respect to one-view asymmetries given that missed cancers are often visible on one view. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study is to compare the outcomes of one-view asymmetries recalled from DBT versus FFDM screening examinations and to determine predictors of malignancy among recalled asymmetries. METHODS. This retrospective study first determined recall rates associated with one-view asymmetries for screening mammography performed using DBT and FFDM from July 14, 2016, through July 14, 2020. Further analyses included patients recalled for a one-view asymmetry who completed subsequent diagnostic workup and all recommended follow-up. Patient and cancer characteristics were extracted from the electronic health record. RESULTS. The recall rate associated with asymmetries was lower for DBT screening (2.5% [3169/128,755]) than for FFDM screening (3.4% [815/23,898]) ( p < .001). Further analyses of patients who completed diagnostic workup and subsequent follow-up included 3119 patients (mean age, 57 years) for DBT screening and 811 patients (mean age, 56 years) for FFDM screening. Distribution of final BI-RADS categories from subsequent diagnostic workup was not different between the two modalities ( p > .99). The frequency of malignancy was not different between asymmetries recalled from DBT (1.7% [54/3119]) and FFDM (1.7% [14/811]) ( p > .99). Malignant asymmetries identified on FFDM versus DBT were more frequently associated with architectural distortion on diagnostic workup (35.7% [5/14] vs 9.3% [5/54]) ( p < .001) and were more commonly invasive ductal carcinoma (92.9% vs 57.4%) and less commonly invasive lobular carcinoma (0.0% vs 24.1%) ( p = .05). In multivariable analysis, independent predictors of malignancy among recalled asymmetries from DBT were age (for 55-69 years, odds ratio [OR] = 2.40 [ p = .04]; for ≥ 70 years, OR = 7.93 [ p < .001]; reference, < 55 years) and breast density (not dense, OR = 2.47 [ p = .001]; reference, dense breasts). CONCLUSION. Recalled asymmetries were less frequent for DBT than for FFDM. The malignancy rate was low for both modalities (1.7%). Age 55 years old and older and lower breast density predicted malignancy for DBT-recalled asymmetries. CLINICAL IMPACT. Our results support the use of DBT to reduce unnecessary recalls without altering PPV for asymmetry-associated malignancies. Patient factors should be considered when assessing whether a potential asymmetry on DBT screening represents overlapping fibroglandular tissue or a suspicious finding that requires diagnostic workup.