International variation in screening mammography interpretations in community-based programs

Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Volumn 95, Issue 18, 2003, Pages 1384-1393

  Elmore, Joann G ^a,d   Nakano, Connie Y ^a   Koepsell, Thomas D ^a   Desnick, Laurel M ^a   D'Orsi, Carl J ^b   Ransohoff, David F ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^b EMORY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AGE; ARTICLE; BREAST BIOPSY; BREAST CANCER; CANCER SCREENING; CARCINOMA IN SITU; COMMUNITY CARE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DATA ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; FEMALE; HEALTH PROGRAM; HUMAN; MAMMOGRAPHY; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; TUMOR VOLUME; UNITED STATES; AGED; BREAST TUMOR; INCIDENCE; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; MASS SCREENING; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; NORTH AMERICA; OBSERVER VARIATION; PAGET NIPPLE DISEASE; PREDICTION AND FORECASTING; RADIOGRAPHY; STATISTICS;

AGED; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CARCINOMA, INTRADUCTAL, NONINFILTRATING; FALSE POSITIVE REACTIONS; FEMALE; HUMANS; INCIDENCE; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; NORTH AMERICA; OBSERVER VARIATION; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS;

EID: 0141617565     PISSN: 00278874     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djg048     Document Type: Article

References (88)

1. Elmore J, Wells C, Lee C, Howard D, Feinstein A. Variability in radiologists' interpretations of mammograms. N Engl J Med 1994;331:1493-9.
2. Beam CA, Layde PM, Sullivan DC. Variability in the interpretation of screening mammograms by US radiologists. Arch Intern Med 1996;156: 209-13.
3. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, Frankel SD, Ominsky SH, Sickles EA, et al. Variability and accuracy in mammographic interpretation using the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998;90:1801-9.
4. Elmore J, Feinstein A. A bibliography of publications on observer variability (final installment). J Clin Epidemiol 1992;45:567-80.
5. Feinstein A. A bibliography of publications on observer variability. J Chronic Dis 1985;38:619-32.
6. Brown M, Goun F, Sickles E, Kessler L. Screening mammography in community practice: positive predictive value of abnormal findings and yield of follow-up procedures. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1995;165:1373-7.
7. Meyer JE, Eberlein TJ, Stomper PC, Sonnenfeld MR. Biopsy of occult breast lesions. JAMA 1990;263:2341-3.
8. Elmore JG, Miglioretti DL, Reisch LM, Barton MB, Kreuter W, Christiansen CL, et al. Screening mammograms by community radiologists: variability in false-positive rates. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94:1373-80.
9. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, Sickles E, Ernster V. Likelihood ratios for modern screening mammography. Risk of breast cancer based on age and mammographic interpretation. JAMA 1996;276:39-43.
10. Bryan S, Brown J, Warren R. Mammography screening: an incremental cost effectiveness analysis of two view versus one view procedures in London. J Epidemiol Community Health 1995;49:70-8.
11. Warren R, Duffy S, Bashir S. The value of the second view in screening mammography. Br J Radiol 1996;69:105-8.
12. Elmore JG, Barton MB, Moceri VM, Polk S, Arena PJ, Fletcher SW. Ten-year risk of false positive screening mammograms and clinical breast examinations. N Engl J Med 1998;338:1089-96.
13. Warren R, Duffy S. Comparison of single reading with double reading of mammograms, and change in effectiveness with experience. Br J Radiol 1995;68:958-62.
14. Brown J, Bryan S, Warren R. Mammography screening: an incremental cost effectiveness analysis of double versus single reading of mammograms. BMJ 1996;312:809-12.
15. de Waard F, Kirkpatrick A, Perry N, Tornberg S, Tubiana M, de Wolf C. Breast cancer screening in the framework of the Europe against Cancer programme. Eur J Cancer Prev 1994;3:3-5.
16. American College of Radiology. Illustrated breast imaging reporting and data system. 3rd ed. Reston (VA): American College of Radiology; 1998.
17. Linver M, Osuch J, Brenner R, Smith R. The mammography audit: a primer for the Mammography Quality Standards Act (MQSA). AJR Am J Roentgenol 1995;165:19-25.
18. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986;7:177-88.
19. Mosteller F, Colditz G. Understanding research synthesis (meta-analysis). Annu Rev Public Health 1996;17:1-23.
20. Thompson S, Sharp S. Explaining heterogeneity in meta-analysis: a comparison of methods. Stat Med 1999;18:2693-708.
21. Burhenne LJ, Hislop TG, Burhenne HJ. The British Columbia mammography screening program: evaluation of the first 15 months. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1992;158:45-9.
22. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, Sickles E, Eaton A, Ernster V. Positive predictive value of screening mammography by age and family history of breast cancer. JAMA 1993;270:2444-50.
23. Robertson CL. A private breast imaging practice: medical audit of 25,788 screening and 1,077 diagnostic examinations. Radiology 1993;187:75-9.
24. Rosenberg RD, Lando JF, Hunt WC, Darling RR, Williamson MR, Linver MN, et al. The New Mexico mammography project. Cancer 1996;78: 1731-9.
25. Bird RE. Low-cost screening mammography: report on finances and review of 21,716 consecutive cases. Radiology 1989;171:87-90.
26. Freer T, Ulissey M. Screening mammography with computer-aided detection: prospective study of 12,860 patients in a community breast center. Radiology 2001;220:781-6.
27. Peters GN, Vogel VG, Evans WP, Bondy M, Halabi S, Lord J, et al. The Texas Breast Screening Project: Part I. Marnmographic and clinical results. South Med J 1993;86:385-90.
28. Lynde J. Low-cost screening mammography: results of 21,141 consecutive examinations in a community program. South Med J 1993;86:338-43.
29. Robinson J, Crane C, King J, Scarce D, Hoffman C. The South Australian breast x-ray service: results from a statewide mammographic screening programme. Br J Cancer 1996;73:837-42.
30. A mammographic screening pilot project in Victoria 1988-1990. The Essendon Breast X-ray Program Collaborative Group. Med J Aust 1992;157: 670-3.
31. Rickard M, Lee W, Read J, Scott A, Stephen D, Grace J. Breast cancer diagnosis by screening mammography: early results of the Central Sydney Area Health Service Breast X-ray Programme. Med J Aust 1991;154: 126-31.
32. Bleyen L, Landeghem PV, Pelfrene E, Vriendt MD, DeSmet A, Backer GD. Screening for breast cancer in Ghent, Belgium: first results of a programme involving the existing health services. Eur J Cancer 1998;34: 1410-4.
33. Van Oyen H, Verellen W. Breast cancer screening in the Flemish Region, Belgium. Eur J Cancer Prev 1994;3:7-12.
34. Dean P, Pamilo M. Screening mammography in Finland--1.5 million examinations with 97 percent specificity. Acta Oncol 1999;38 Suppl 13: 47-54.
35. Renaud R, Gairard B, Schaffer P, Guldenfels C, Haehnel P, Dale G, et al. Europe against Cancer breast cancer screening programme in France: the ADEMAS programme in Bas-Rhin. Eur J Cancer Prev 1994;3:13-9.
36. Seguret F, Daures J, Guizard A, Mathieu-Daude H, Bonifacj J, Cherifcheik J, et al. Herault breast screening programme: results after 30 months of mobile French schedule. Eur J Cancer Prev 1995;4:299-305.
37. Garas I, Pateras H, Triandafilou D, Georgountzos V, Mihas A, Abatzoglou M, et al. Breast cancer screening in southern Greece. Eur J Cancer Prev 1994;3:35-9.
38. Lau Y, Lau P, Chan C, Yip A. The potential impact of breast cancer screening in Hong Kong. Aust N Z J Surg 1998;68:707-11.
39. Sigfusson B, Hallgrimsson P. Breast cancer screening in Iceland: preliminary results. Recent Results Cancer Res 1990;119:94-9.
40. Codd M, Laird O, Dowling M, Dervan P, Gorey T, Stack J, et al. Screening for breast cancer in Ireland: the Eccles breast screening programme. Eur J Cancer Prev 1994;3:21-7.
41. de Placido S, Nuzzo F, Perrone F, Carlomagno C, Noviello A, Delrio P, et al. The first breast cancer screening program in southern Italy: preliminary results from three municipalities of the Naples Province. Tumori 1995; 81:7-12.
42. Giorgi D, Ambrogetti D, Bianchi S, Catarzi S, Ciatto S, Morrone D, et al. Design and preliminary results of the Florence Breast Cancer Screening Programme (Progetto Firenze Donna). Eur J Cancer Prev 1994;3:29-34.
43. Filippini L, Braga M, Perna E, Bianchi A, Bettoni C, Lucini L, et al. Results of a mammographic and clinical screening in a health district (USSL) of Brescia, Italy. Tumori 1996;82:430-6.
44. Autier P. A breast cancer screening programme operating in a liberal health care system: the Luxembourg Mammography Programme, 1992-1997. Int J Cancer 2002;97:828-32.
45. De Koning HJ, Fracheboud J, Boer R, Verbeek AL, Hubertine JC, Hendriks JH, et al. Nation-wide breast cancer screening in The Netherlands: support for breast-cancer mortality reduction. Int J Cancer 1995;60: 777-80.
46. Alves JG, Cruz DB, Rodrigues VL, Goncalves ML, Fernandes E. Breast cancer screening in the central region of Portugal. Eur J Cancer Prev 1994;3 Suppl 1:49-53.
47. Ascunce N, del Moral A, Murillo A, Alfaro C, Apesteguia L, Ros J, et al. Early detection programme for breast cancer in Navarra, Spain. Eur J Cancer Prev 1994;3:41-8.
48. Vizcaino I, Salas D, Vilar J, Ruiz-Perales F, Herranz C, Ibanez J. Breast cancer screening: first round in the population-based program in Valencia, Spain. Collaborative group of readers of the Breast Cancer Screening Program of the Valencia Community. Radiology 1998;200:253-60.
49. Thurfjell E. Population-based mammography screening in clinical practice. Acta Radiol 1994;35:487-91.
50. Litherland J, Evans A, Wilson A. The effect of hormone replacement therapy on recall rate in the National Health Service Breast Screening Programme. Clin Radiol 1997;52:276-9.
51. O'Driscoll D, Britton P, Bobrow, L, Wishart G, Sinnatamby R, Warren R. Lobular carcinoma in situ on core biopsy-what is the clinical significance? Clin Radiol 2001;56:216-20.
52. Thurfjell EL, Lernevall KA, Taube AA. Benefit of independent double reading in a population-based mammography screening program. Radiology 1994;191:241-4.
53. Lerman C, Trock B, Rimer B, Boyce A. Psychological and behavioral implications of abnormal mammograms. Ann Intern Med 1991;114: 657-61.
54. Burman ML, Taplin SH, Herta DF, Elmore JG. Effect of false-positive mammograms on interval breast cancer screening in an HMO. Ann Intern Med 1999;131:1-6.
55. Pisano E, Earp J, Schell M, Vokaty K, Denham A. Screening behavior of women after a false-positive mammogram. Radiology 1998;208:245-9.
56. Cyrlak D. Induced costs of low-cost screening mammography. Radiology 1988;168:661-3.
57. Taplin S, Barlow W, Urban N, Mandelson M, Timlin D, Ichikawa L, et al. Stage, age, comorbidity, and direct costs of colon, prostate, and breast cancer care. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995;87:417-26.
58. Linver M, Paster S, Rosenberg R, Key C, Stidley C, King W. Improvement in mammography interpretation skills in a community radiology practice after dedicated teaching courses: 2-year medical audit of 38,663 cases. Radiology 1992;184:39-43.
59. Elmore JG, Wells CK, Howard DH. Does diagnostic accuracy in mammography depend on radiologists' experience? J Womens Health 1998;7: 443-9.
60. Esserman L, Cowley H, Eberle C, Kirkpatrick A, Chang S, Berbaum K, et al. Improving the accuracy of mammography: volume and outcome relationships. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94:321-3.
61. Beam CA, Conant EF, Sickles EA. Association of volume and volume-independent factors with accuracy in screening mammogram interpretation. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;95:282-90.
62. Elmore JG, Miglioretti DL, Carney PA. Does practice make perfect when interpreting mammography? Part II. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;95:250-2.
63. Pearson S, Goldman L, Orav E. Triage decisions for emergency department patients with chest pain: do physicians' risk attitudes make a difference? J Gen Intern Med 1995;10:557-67.
64. D'Orsi C, Getty D, Swets J, Pickett R, Seltzer S, McNeil B. Reading and decision aids for improved accuracy and standardization of mammographic diagnosis. Radiology 1992;184:619-22.
65. Swets J, Getty D, Pickett R, D'Orsi C, Seltzer S, McNeil B. Enhancing and evaluating diagnostic accuracy. Med Decis Making 1991;11:9-18.
66. Getty D, Pickett R, D'Orsi C, Swets J. Enhanced interpretation of diagnostic images. Invest Radiol 1988;23:240-52.
67. D'Orsi CJ, Swets JA. Variability in the interpretation of mammograms. N Engl J Med 1995;332(17):1172.
68. Bovbjerg RR, Dubay LC, Kenney GM, Norton SA. Defensive medicine and tort reform: new evidence in an old bottle. J Health Polit Policy Law 1996;21:267-88.
69. Opinion Research Corporation. Professional liability and its effects: report of a 1987 survey of ACOG's membership. Prepared for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Washington (DC): Opinion Research Corporation; March 1988.
70. Jacobson PD, Rosenquist CJ. The use of low-osmolar contrast agents: technological change and defensive medicine. J Health Polit Policy Law 1996;21:243-66.
71. California Medical Association. Professional liability issues in obstetrical practice. Socioecon Rep 25; Nos. 6 and 7. 1987.
72. Klingman D, Localio AR, Sugarman J, Wagner JL, Polishuk PT, Wolfe L, et al. Measuring defensive medicine using clinical scenario surveys. J Health Polit Policy Law 1996;21:185-217.
73. Hershey N. The defensive practice of medicine: myth or reality. Milbank Mem Fund Q 1972 Jan;50:69-98.
74. Hirsh HL, Dickey TS. Defensive medicine as a basis for malpractice liability. Trans Stud Coll Physicians Phila 1983;5:99-107.
75. Edwards KS. Defensive medicine. Health care with a pricetag. Ohio State Med J 1985;81:38-42.
76. Strunk AL, Kenyon S. Medicolegal considerations in the diagnosis of breast cancer. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 2002;29:43-9.
77. Physician Insurers Association of America. Breast cancer study: June 1995. Washington, DC. Physician Insurers Association of America; June 1995.
78. Zuckerman S. Medical malpractice: claims, legal costs, and the practice of defensive medicine. Health Aff (Millwood) Fall 1984;3:128-33.
79. Weisman CS, Morlock LL, Teitelbaum MA, Klassen AC, Celentano DD. Practice changes in response to the malpractice litigation climate. Results of a Maryland physician survey. Med Care 1989;27:16-24.
80. Voss JD. Prostate cancer, screening, and prostate-specific antigen: promise or peril? J Gen Intern Med 1994;9:468-74.
81. Hillman AL, Pauly MV, Kerstein JJ. How do financial incentives affect physicians' clinical decisions and the financial performance of health maintenance organizations? N Engl J Med 1989;321:86-92.
82. Hemenway D, Killen A, Cashman SB, Parks CL, Bicknell WJ. Physicians' responses to financial incentives. Evidence from a for-profit ambulatory care center. N Engl J Med 1990;322:1059-63.
83. Fairbrother G, Hanson KL, Friedman S, Butts GC. The impact of physician bonuses, enhanced fees, and feedback on childhood immunization coverage rates. Am J Public Health 1999;89:171-5.
84. de Wolf CJ, Perry NM, editors. European guidelines for quality assurance in mammography screening. 2nd ed. Luxembourg: European Commission, Europe Against Cancer Programme; 1996. p. I-5, I-7, I-10.
85. Quality determinants of mammography. Clinical practice guidelines. No. 13. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research Publ. 95-0632; October, 1994.
86. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM, et al. The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration. Clin Chem 2003;49:7-18.
87. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM, et al. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy. Clin Chem 2003;49:1-6.
88. Ballard-Barbash R, Taplin S, Yankaskas B, Ernster V, Rosenberg R, Carney P, et al. Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium: a national mammography screening and outcomes database. AJR Am J Roentgenol Oct 1997; 169:1001-8.