Purpose: To assess the components of breast imaging fellowship programs across the country.
Materials and Methods: In this IRB-approved study, an anonymous REDCap survey was sent to program directors of Breast Imaging Fellowships listed on the Society of Breast Imaging Website. The survey included questions about general program information, call and research requirements, elective time, and post-graduate practice patterns.
Results: A total of 47/83 (57%) programs participated in the survey. 42 programs reported their location, 33.3% were in the Northeast, 21.4% in the Southeast, 19.1% in the Midwest, 14.2% in the Pacific, and 11.9% in the Southwest [Fig.1]. Regarding teaching modalities in different programs, hands-on ultrasound training (91.5%), didactic lectures (85%), journal clubs (83.0%), case-based teaching sessions (74.5%), biopsy simulations (61.7%), QA conferences (55.3%), MQSA audit training (47%), mammography QC training (47%), and formal communication training (40%) were reported. In terms of fellows’ exposure to cases, wire-free localization (96%), wire localizations (89%), whole-breast screening ultrasound (68%), contrast-enhanced mammography (28%), and molecular breast imaging (9%) were reported by the programs. Out of all programs, 53% had no weekday call. Programs that did have calls mostly had breast imaging-related and cross-sectional calls (23% each). 65% of programs reported weekend calls, mostly related to the interpretation of plain films (40%). 44% of the programs did not require involvement in research. 53% of the programs reported 1-3 academic days per month. 62% of programs provided ≥ 3 weeks of elective time. 28% of programs had no formal policy on parental leave. The highest reported parental leave was 5-8 weeks (26% of programs). A majority reported ≥ 50% of fellows entered private practice and 25-50% entered academics. [Fig.2]
Conclusion: A survey of 57% of breast imaging fellowship programs reveals how training varies across the country. A majority of programs provided didactic lectures and offered hands-on ultrasound training. However, less than half of the programs provided formal training in MQSA audit, mammography QC, and patient communication. A majority had no weekday calls but did have weekend calls. A majority had either no or minimal research requirements but did provide some form of academic time. Parental leave policies varied across programs.
Clinical Relevance Statement: Understanding the commonalities and differences of breast imaging fellowship programs will help designing and implementing initiatives directed at standardizing and improving fellowship training.
