Trends in recall, biopsy, and positive biopsy rates for screening mammography in an academic practice

Radiology

Volumn 235, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 396-401

  Gur, David ^a   Wallace, Luisa P ^a   Klym, Amy H ^a   Hardesty, Lara A ^a   Abrams, Gordon S ^a   Shah, Ratan ^a   Sumkin, Jules H ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ASPIRATION BIOPSY; BIOPSY TECHNIQUE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; EXCISION; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; LINEAR REGRESSION ANALYSIS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MULTIPLE BIOPSY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; REVIEW; SCREENING; STEREOTACTIC VACUUM ASSISTED BIOPSY; TUMOR BIOPSY; ULTRASONOGRAPHY GUIDED CORE BIOPSY;

BIOPSY; BREAST; BREAST NEOPLASMS; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSIS, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; FEMALE; FORECASTING; HEALTH SERVICES NEEDS AND DEMAND; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; QUALITY ASSURANCE, HEALTH CARE; QUALITY INDICATORS, HEALTH CARE; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; UNITED STATES;

EID: 17644398779     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2352040422     Document Type: Review

References (22)

1. Elmore JG, Nakano CY, Koepsell TD, Desnick LM, D'Orsi CJ, Ransohoff DF. International variation in screening mammography interpretations in community-based programs. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003; 95:1384-1393.
2. Liang W, Lawrence W, Burnett CB, et al. Acceptability of diagnostic tests for breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2003; 79:199-206.
3. GE Medical Systems. 3D Digital mammography from GE medical provides new information for diagnosing breast cancer. Available at: www.gemedicalsystems. com/company/pressroom/releases/pr_release_9422.html. Accessed January 29, 2004.
4. Roque AC, Andre TC. Mammography and computerized decision systems: a review. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2002; 980:83-94.
5. Kouskos E, Markopoulos C, Revenas K, Koufopoulos K, Kyriakou V, Gogas J. Computer-aided preoperative diagnosis of microcalcifications on mammograms. Acta Radiol 2003; 44:43-46.
6. Leichter I, Buchbinder S, Bamberger P, Novak B, Fields S, Lederman R. Quantitative characterization of mass lesions on digitized mammograms for computer-assisted diagnosis. Invest Radiol 2000; 35:366-372.
7. Pamilo M, Anttinen I, Soiva M, Roiha M, Suramo I. Mammography screening: reasons for recall and the influence of experience on recall in the Finnish system. Clin Radiol 1990; 41:384-387.
8. Elmore JG, Wells CK, Howard DH. Does diagnostic accuracy in mammography depend on radiologists' experience? J Womens Health 1998; 7:443-449.
9. 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.
10. Sickles EA, Wolverton DE, Dee KE. Performance parameters for screening and diagnostic mammography: specialists and general radiologists. Radiology 2002; 224:861-869.
11. Kan L, Olivotto IA, Warren Burhenne LJ, Sickles EA, Coldman AJ. Standardized abnormal interpretation and cancer detection ratios to assess reading volume and reader performance in a breast screening program. Radiology 2000; 215:563-567.
12. Beig WA, D'Oisi CJ, Jackson VP, et al. Does training in the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) improve biopsy recommendations or feature analysis agreement with experienced breast imagers at mammography? Radiology 2002; 224:871-880.
13. Dean PB, Pamilo M. Screening mammography in Finland - 1.5 million examinations with 97 percent specificity. Mammography Working Group, Radiological Society of Finland. Acta Oncol 1999; 38(suppl 13):47-54.
14. Beam CA, Conant EF, Sickles EA. Association of volume and volume-independent factors with accuracy in screening mammogram interpretation. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003; 95:282-290.
15. Smith-Bindman R, Chu PW, Miglioretti DL, et al. Comparison of screening mammography in the United States and the United Kingdom. JAMA 2003; 290:2129-2137.
16. Schmidt F, Hartwagner KA, Spork EB, Groell R. Medical audit after 26,711 breast imaging studies: improved rate of detection of small breast carcinomas (classified as Tis or T1a,b). Cancer 1998; 83:2516-2520.
17. 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 system. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004; 96:185-190.
18. Gur D, Sumkin JH, Hardesty LA, et al. Recall and detection rates in screening mammography, a review of clinical experience: implications on practice guidelines. Cancer 2004; 100:1590-1594.
19. Food and Drug Administration. Quality standards and certification requirements for mammography facilities (21 CFR Part 900). Federal Register 1993; 58:67565.
20. Linver MN, Osuch JR, Brenner RJ, Smith RA. The mammography audit: a primer for the Mammography Quality Standards Act (MQSA). AJR Am J Roentgenol 1995; 165:19-25.
21. Elmore JG, Carney PA. Computer-aided detection of breast cancer: has promise outstripped performance? J Natl Cancer Inst 2004; 96:162-163.
22. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Health Care Policy and Research. Clinical practice guideline number 13: quality determinants of mammography. AHCPR publication 95-0632. Rockville, Md: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1994.