Comparison of recall and cancer detection rates for immediate versus batch interpretation of screening mammograms

Radiology

Volumn 235, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 31-35

  Ghate, Sujata V ^a   Soo, Mary Scott ^a   Baker, Jay A ^a   Walsh, Ruth ^a   Gimenez, Edgardo I ^a   Rosen, Eric L ^a  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER RISK; CANCER SCREENING; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; MAMMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANK SUM TEST; RECALL; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BREAST NEOPLASMS; FALSE NEGATIVE REACTIONS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; MENTAL RECALL; MIDDLE AGED; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES;

EID: 15944373543     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2351040699     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Wilson TE, Wallace C, Roubidoux MA, Sonnad SS, Crowe DJ, Helvie M. Patient satisfaction with screening mammography: on-line vs off-line interpretation. Acad Radiol 1998; 5:771-778.
2. Lindfors KK, O'Connor J, Parker RA. False-positive screening mammograms: effect of immediate versus later work-up on patient stress. Radiology 2001; 218:247-253.
3. Liu S, Bassett LW, Sayre J. Women's attitudes about receiving mammographic results directly from radiologists. Radiology 1994; 193:783-786.
4. Raza S, Rosen MP, Chorny D, Mehta TS, Hulka CA, Baum JK. Patient expectations and costs of immediate reporting of screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001; 177:579-583.
5. American College of Radiology. Illustrated Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS). 3rd ed. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology, 1998.
6. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. Occult cancer in women with dense breasts: detection with screening US - diagnostic yield and tumor characteristics. Radiology 1998; 207:191-199.
7. Gur D, Sumkin JH, Rockette HE, et al. Changes in breast cancer detection and mammography recall rates after the introduction of a computer-aided detection system1. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004; 96:185-190.
8. Destounis SV, DiNitto P, Logan-Young WW, et al. Can computer aided detection with double reading of screening mammograms help decrease false negative rate? initial experience. Radiology 2004; 232:578-584.
9. Sickles EA, Weber WN, Galvin HB, Ominsky SH, Sollitto RA. Mammographic screening: how to operate successfully at low cost. Radiology 1986; 160:95-97.
10. Brown J, Bryan S, Warren R. Mammography screening: an incremental cost-effectiveness analysis of double reading in a population-based mammography screening program. BMJ 1996; 312:809-812.
11. Thurfjell EL, Lernfvall KA, Taube AS. Benefit of independent double reading in a population-based mammography screening program. Radiology 1994; 191:241-244.
12. Warren Burhenne LJ, Wood SA, D'Orsi CJ, et al. Potential contribution of computer-aided detection to the sensitivity of screening mammography. Radiology 2000; 215:554-562.
13. Freer TW, Ulissey MJ. Screening mammography with computer-aided detection: prospective study of 12,800 patients in a community breast center. Radiology 2001; 220:781-786.
14. Hulka CA, Slanetz PJ, Halpern EF, et al. Patients' opinion of mammography screening services: immediate results versus delayed results due to interpretation by two observers. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997; 168:1085-1089.
15. Slanetz PJ, Moore RH, Hulka CA, et al. Physicians' opinions on the delivery of mammographic screening services: immediate interpretation versus double reading. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996; 167:377-379.
16. White K, Berbaun K, Smith WL. The role of previous radiographs and reports in the interpretation of current radiographs. Invest Radiol 1994; 29:263-265.
17. Sickles EA. Periodic mammographic follow-up of probably benign lesions: results in 3,184 consecutive cases. Radiology 1991; 179:463-467.
18. Sickles EA, Ominsky SH, Solitto RA, Galvin HB, Monticciolo DL. Medical audit of a rapid-throughput mammography screening practice: methodology and results of 27,114 examinations. Radiology 1990; 175:323-327.
19. Bassett LW, Shayestehfar B, Ibrahim H. Obtaining previous mammograms for comparison: usefulness and costs. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1994; 163:1083-1086.