Comparison of Screening Mammography in the United States and the United Kingdom

JAMA

Volumn 290, Issue 16, 2003, Pages 2129-2137

  Smith Bindman, Rebecca ^a,b   Chu, Philip W ^b   Miglioretti, Diana L ^c   Sickles, Edward A ^b   Blanks, Roger ⁱ   Ballard Barbash, Rachel ^d   Bobo, Janet K ^e,h   Lee, Nancy C ^e   Wallis, Matthew G ^f   Patnick, Julietta ^g   Kerlikowske, Karla ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^d NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

^e CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION   (United States)

^f W S/C Breast Screening Service   (United Kingdom)

^g Natl Hlth Serv Breast Screen P   (United Kingdom)

^h BATTELLE MEMORIAL INSTITUTE   (United States)

ⁱ NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGE DISTRIBUTION; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST BIOPSY; BREAST CANCER; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY; CANCER SCREENING; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; ECHOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HEALTH PROGRAM; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; PERFORMANCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; UNITED KINGDOM; UNITED STATES; BIOPSY; BREAST TUMOR; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; STATISTICS;

AGED; BIOPSY; BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0142119238     PISSN: 00987484     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1001/jama.290.16.2129     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Houn F, Brown M. Current practice of screening mammography in the United States: data from the National Survey of Mammography Facilities. Radiology. 1994;190:209-215.
2. Blanks R, Moss S, Patnick J. Results from the United Kingdom NHS breast screening programme 1994-1999. J Med Screen. 2000;7:195-198.
3. UK National Health Service Breast Screening Web site. The NHS Breast Screening Programme. Available at: http: //www.cancerscreening.nhs.uk/breastscreen. Accessibility verified September 10, 2003.
4. Brown M, Houn F, Sickles E, Kessler L. Screening mammography in community practice: positive predictive value of abnormal findings and yield of follow-up diagnostic procedures. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1995;165:1373-1377.
5. Blanks R, Bennett R, Wallis M, Moss S. Does individual programme size affect screening performance? results from the United Kingdom NHS breast screening programme. J Med Screen. 2002;9:11-14.
6. Shapiro S, Coleman E, Broeders M, et al, for International Breast Cancer Screening Network (IBSN) and the European Network of Pilot Projects for Breast Cancer Screening. Breast cancer screening programmes in 22 countries: current policies, administration and guidelines. Int J Epidemiol. 1998;27:735-742.
7. Ballard-Barbash R, Taplin SH, Yankaskas BC, et al. Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium: a national mammography screening and outcomes database. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1997;169:1001-1008.
8. Henson R, Wyatt S, Lee N. The National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program: a comprehensive public health response to two major health issues for women. J Public Health Manag Pract. 1996; 2:36-47.
9. May D, Lee N, Nadel M, et al. The National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program: report on the first 4 years of mammography provided to medically underserved women. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1998; 170:97-104.
10. Working Group chaired by Professor Sir Patrick Forrest. Breast Cancer Screening: Report to Health Ministers of England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. London, England: Her Majesty's Stationery Office; 1986.
11. Carney P, Miglioretti D, Yankaskas B, et al. Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the performance of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138:168-173.
12. Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium Web site. Available at: http://www.breastscreening.cancer.gov /elements.html#guestionnaires. Accessibility verified September 10, 2003.
13. American College of Radiology. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS). 3rd ed. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology; 1998.
14. Ernster VL, Ballard-Barbash R, Barlow WE, et al. Detection of DCIS in women undergoing screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94:1151-1159.
15. Pub L No. 102-539.
16. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, et al. Likelihood ratios for modern screening mammography: risk of breast cancer based on age and mammographic interpretation. JAMA. 1996;276:39-43.
17. Sickles E, Ominsky S, Sollitto R, et al. Medical audit of a rapid-throughput mammography screening practice: methodology and results of 27,114 examinations. Radiology. 1990;175:323-327.
18. Leitch AM, Dodd GD, Costanza M, et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for the early detection of breast cancer: update 1997. CA Cancer J Clin. 1997; 47:150-153.
19. Feig SA, D'Orsi CJ, Hendrick RE, et al. American College of Radiology guidelines for breast cancer screening. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1998;171:29-33.
20. US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for breast cancer: recommendations and rationale. Available at: http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/3rduspstf /breastcancer/brcanrr.htm#consideration. Accessibility verified September 10, 2003.
21. US Preventive Services Task Force. The Guide to Clinical Preventive Services. Washington, DC: Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion; 1996.
22. Yood M, McCarthy B, Lee N, et al. Patterns and characteristics of repeat mammography among women 50 years and older. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 1999;8:595-599.
23. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, et al. Positive predictive value of screening mammography by age and family history of breast cancer. JAMA. 1993;270: 2444-2450.
24. UK Department of Health. Statistical Bulletin, Breast Screening Programme, England: 1999-2000. England: National Statistics; 2001. Bulletin 2001/10.
25. Esserman L, Cowley H, Eberle C, et al. Improving the accuracy of mammography: volume and outcome relationships. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94:369-375.
26. Moss M. Spotting breast cancer: doctors are weak link. New York Times. June 27, 2002.
27. Physician Insurers Association of America. Breast Cancer Study: June 1995. Washington, DC: Physician Insurers Association of America; 1995.
28. Kan L, Olivotto I, Burhenne LW, et al. Standardized abnormal interpretation and cancer detection ratios to assess reading volume and reader performance in a breast screening program. Radiology. 2000; 215:563-567.
29. NHS Breast Screening Radiologists Quality Assurance Committee. Quality Assurance Guidelines for Radiologists. Sheffield, England: National Health Service Breast Screening Program; 1997. Publication 15
30. Kopans D. Double reading. Radiol Clin North Am. 2000;38:719-724.
31. Williams LJ, Hartswood M, Prescott RJ. Methodological issues in mammography double reading studies. J Med Screen. 1998;5:202-206.
32. Christiansen C, Wang F, Barton M, et al. Predicting the cumulative risk of false-positive mammograms. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92:1657-1666.
33. Burnside ES, Sickles EA, Sohlich RE, Dee KE. Differential value of comparison with previous examinations in diagnostic versus screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002;179:1173-1177.
34. Bassett L, Hendrick R, Bassford T, et al. Quality Determinants of Mammography: Clinical Practice Guideline #13. Rockville, Md: Agency for Health Care Policy and Research; 1994. AHCPR Publication 95-0632.
35. Gale A, Cowley H. Breast cancer screening: comparison of radiologists' performance in a self-assessment scheme and in actual breast screening. In: Krupinski EA, ed. Medical Imaging 1999: Image Perception and Performance. San Diego, Calif: Spie, Bellingham, Washington; 1999:157-168.
36. Blanks R, Moss S, Wallis M. Monitoring and evaluating the UK National Health Service Breast Screening Programme: evaluating the variation in radiological performance between individual programmes using PPV-referral diagrams. J Med Screen. 2001;8:24-28.
37. NHS Breast Screening Programme and British Association of Surgical Oncology. An Audit of Screen Detected Breast Cancers for the Year of Screening, April 1998-March 1999. Sheffield, England: National Health Service Breast Screening Program; 2000.
38. Suleiman O, Spelic D, McCrohan J, et al. Mammography in the 1990's: the United States and Canada. Radiology. 1999;210:345-351.
39. Klabunde CN, Sancho-Gardnie H, Taplin S, et al. Quality assurance in follow-up and initial treatment for screening mammography programs in 22 countries. Int J Qual Health Care. 2002;14:449-461.
40. Sickles E, Wolverton D, Dee K. Performance parameters for screening and diagnostic mammography: specialist and general radiologists. Radiology. 2002;224:861-869.
41. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Available at: http://www.iarc.fr/. Accessibility verified September 10, 2003.
42. Yankaskas BC, Cleveland RJ, Schell MJ, Kozar R. Association of recall rates with sensitivity and positive predictive values of screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001;177:543-549.
43. Sohlich R, Sickles E, Burnside E, Dee K. Interpreting data from audits when screening and diagnostic mammography outcomes are combined. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002;178:681-686.
44. Dee K, Sickles E. Medical audit of diagnostic mammography examinations: comparison with screening outcomes obtained concurrently. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001;176:729-733.
45. Elmore JG, Barton MB, Moceri VM, et al. Ten-year risk of false positive screening mammograms and clinical breast examinations. N Engl J Med. 1998;338: 1089-1096.
46. Beam CA, Sullivan DC, Layde PM. Effect of human variability on independent double reading in screening mammography. Acad Radiol. 1996;3:891-897.
47. Salzmann P, Kerlikowske K, Phillips K. Cost-effectiveness of extending screening mammography guidelines to include women 40 to 49 years of age. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127:955-965.
48. Burnside E, Belkora J, Esserman L. The impact of alternative practices on the cost and quality of mammographic screening in the United States. Clin Breast Cancer. 2001;2:145-152.
49. Brett J, Austoker J. Women who are recalled for further investigation for breast screening: psychological consequences 3 years after recall and factors affecting re-attendance. J Public Health Med. 2001;23:292-300.