Frequency and predictive value of a mammographic recommendation for short-interval follow-up

Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Volumn 95, Issue 6, 2003, Pages 429-436

  Yasmeen, Shagufta ^a   Romano, Patrick S ^a   Pettinger, Mary ^b   Chlebowski, Rowan T ^c   Robbins, John A ^a   Lane, Dorothy S ^d   Hendrix, Susan L ^e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center   (United States)

^c HARBOR UCLA MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^d STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

^e WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BENIGN TUMOR; BREAST CANCER; BREAST TUMOR; CANCER INCIDENCE; CANCER SCREENING; CLINICAL TRIAL; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; FREQUENCY ANALYSIS; HUMAN; LONGITUDINAL STUDY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; MULTICENTER STUDY; PATIENT COUNSELING; POSTMENOPAUSE; PREVALENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; TIME; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0037454233     PISSN: 00278874     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jnci/95.6.429     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Humphrey LL, Helfand M, Chan BK, Woolf SH. Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2002;137(5 Part 1):347-60.
2. American College of Radiology. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS). 3rd ed. Reston (VA): American College of Radiology; 1998. [Last accessed: 02/06/2003.] Available at: http://www.imaginis.com/breasthealth/acrbi.asp and then click on the first link under "Additional Resources and References" at the bottom of the page (http://www.acr.org/cgi-bin/fr?mast:masthead-products,text:/departments/ stand accred/birads-a.html).
3. Velanovich V. Immediate biopsy versus observation for abnormal findings on mammograms: an analysis of potential outcomes and costs. Am J Surg 1995;170:327-32.
4. Hall FM, Storella JM, Silverstone DZ, Wyshak G. Non-palpable breast lesions: recommendations for biopsy based on suspicion of carcinoma at mammography. Radiology 1988;167:353-8.
5. Caplan LS, Blackman D, Nadel M, Monticciolo DL. Coding mammograms using the classification "probably benign finding--short interval follow-up suggested". AJR Am J Roentgenol 1999;172:339-42.
6. Cyrlak D. Induced costs of low cost screening mammography. Radiology 1988;168:661-3.
7. Barton MB, Moore S, Polk S, Shtatland E, Elmore JG, Fletcher SW. Increased patient concern after false-positive mammograms: clinician documentation and subsequent ambulatory visits. J Gen Intern Med 2001;16:150-6.
8. Ong G, Austoker J, Brett J. Breast screening: adverse psychological consequences one month after placing women on early recall because of diagnostic uncertainty. A multicenter study. J Med Screen 1997;4:158-68.
9. Sickles EA. Periodic mammographic follow-up of probably benign lesions: results in 3,184 consecutive cases. Radiology 1991;179:463-8.
10. Orel SG, Kay N, Reynolds C, Sullivan DC. BI-RADS categorization as a predictor of malignancy. Radiology 1999;211:845-50.
11. The Women's Health Initiative Study Group. Design of the Women's Health Initiative Clinical Trial and Observational Study. Controlled Clin Trials 1998;19:61-109.
12. Taplin SH, Ichikawa LE, Kerlikowske K, Ernster VL, Rosenberg RD, Yankaskas BC, et al. Concordance of breast imaging reporting and data system assessments and management recommendations in screening mammography. Radiology 2002;222:529-35.
13. Imaginis. Breast cancer diagnosis. Mammogram interpretation: categories and the ACR/BI-RADS. [Last accessed: 02/06/2003.] Available at: http://www.imaginis.com/breasthealth/acrbi.asp and then click on the first link under "Additional Resources and References" at the bottom of the page (http://www.acr.org/cgi-bin/fr?mast:masthead-products,text:/departments/ stand accred/birads-a.html).
14. Roberts MM, Alexander FE, Anderson TJ, Chetty U, Donnan PT, et al. Edinburgh trial of screening for breast cancer: mortality at seven years. Lancet 1990;335:241-6.
15. Mossman D, Berger JO. Intervals for posttest probabilities: a comparison of 5 methods. Med Decis Making 2001;21:498-507.
16. Simel DL, Samsa GP, Matchar DB. Likelihood ratios with confidence: sample size estimation for diagnostic studies. J Clin Epidemiol 1991;44:763-70.
17. Weissert WG. Estimating the long-term care population: prevalence rates and selected characteristics. Health Care Financ Rev 1985;6:83-91.
18. Specificity of screening in United Kingdom trial of early detection of breast cancer. BMJ 1992;304:346-9.
19. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, Sickles EA, Ernster VL. Likelihood ratios for modern screening mammography. Risk of breast cancer based on age and mammographic interpretation. JAMA 1996;276:39-43.
20. Varas X, Leborgne F, Leborgne JH. Nonpalpable, probably benign lesions: role of follow-up mammography. Radiology 1992;184:409-14.
21. Lacquement MA, Mitchell D, Hollingsworth AB. Positive predictive value of the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. J Am Coll Surg 1999;189:34-40.
22. Brown ML, Houn F, Sickles EA, Kessler LG. Screening mammography in community practice: positive predictive value of abnormal findings and yield of follow-up diagnostic procedures. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1995;165:1373-7.
23. Retsky M, Demicheli R, Hrushesky W. Breast cancer screening for women aged 40-49 years: screening may not be the benign process usually thought. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001;93:1572.
24. Retsky M, Demicheli R, Hrushesky W. Premenopausal status accelerates relapse in node positive breast cancer: hypothesis links angiogenesis, screening controversy. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2001;65:217-24.
25. Code of Federal Regulations: Quality Mammography Standards. Final Rule. 21 C.F.R. Parts 16 and 900 (1997). [Last accessed: 02/06/2003.] Available at: http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/mammography/mqsa_accomplishments.html.