Performance benchmarks for diagnostic mammography

Radiology

Volumn 235, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 775-790

  Sickles, Edward A ^a   Miglioretti, Diana L ^b   Ballard Barbash, Rachel ^c   Geller, Berta M ^d   Leung, Jessica W T ^a   Rosenberg, Robert D ^e   Smith Bindman, Rebecca ^a   Yankaskas, Bonnie C ^f  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b CENTER FOR HEALTH STUDIES   (United States)

^c NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER   (United States)

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

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ADVANCED CANCER; AGED; ARTICLE; AXILLARY LYMPH NODE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY; CANCER REGISTRY; CANCER SIZE; EARLY CANCER; FEMALE; HUMAN; LYMPH NODE METASTASIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; PERFORMANCE; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; RADIOLOGIST;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BENCHMARKING; BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; UNITED STATES;

EID: 18844419030     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2353040738     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Monsees BS. The Mammography Quality Standards Act: an overview of the regulations and guidance. Radiol Clin North Am 2000; 38:759-772.
2. Murphy WA Jr, Destouet JM, Monsees BS. Professional quality assurance for mammography screening programs. Radiology 1990; 175:319-320.
3. Sickles EA, Ominsky SH, Sollitto 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.
4. Sickles EA. Quality assurance: how to audit your own mammography practice. Radiol Clin North Am 1992; 30:265-275.
5. Tabár L, Fagerberg G, Duffy SW, Day NE, Gad A, Gröntoft O. Update of the Swedish two-county program of mammographic screening for breast cancer. Radiol Clin North Am 1992; 30:187-210.
6. Bassett LW, Hendrick RE, Bassford TL, et al. Clinical practice guideline number 13: quality determinants of mammography. AHCPR Publication 95-0632. Rockville, Md: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, Public Health Service, 1994; 83.
7. 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.
8. European Commission. European guidelines for quality assurance in mammography screening. 3rd ed. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2001.
9. Dee KE, Sickles EA. Medical audit of diagnostic mammography examinations: comparison with screening outcomes obtained concurrently. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001; 176:729-733.
10. Sohlich RE, Sickles EA, Burnside ES, Dee KE. Interpreting data from audits when screening and diagnostic mammography outcomes are combined. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002; 178:681-686.
11. Beam CA, Layde PM, Sullivan DC. Variability in the interpretation of screening mammograms by US radiologists: findings from a national sample. Arch Intern Med 1996; 156:209-213.
12. Beam CA, Sullivan DC, Layde PM. Effect of human variability on independent double reading in screening mammography. Acad Radiol 1996; 3:891-897.
13. Elmore JG, Wells CK, Howard DH. Does diagnostic accuracy in mammography depend on radiologist experience? J Womens Health 1998; 7:443-449.
14. 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.
15. Beam CA, Conant EF, Sickles EA. Factors affecting radiologist inconsistency in screening mammography. Acad Radiol 2002; 9:531-540.
16. Sickles EA, Wolverton DE, Dee KE. Performance parameters for screening and diagnostic mammography: specialist and general radiologists. Radiology 2002; 224: 861-869.
17. 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.
18. Guenin MA. Generalists versus specialists in mammography (letter). Radiology 2003; 227:609.
19. Sickles EA, Wolverton DE, Dee KE. Generalists versus specialists in mammography: Dr Sickles and colleagues respond (letter). Radiology 2003; 227:609-611.
20. 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.
21. Carney PA, Geller BM, Mofett H, et al. Current medicolegal and confidentiality issues in large multicenter research programs. Am J Epidemiol 2000; 152:371-378.
22. D'Orsi CJ, Bassett LW, Feig SA, et al. Illustrated breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS). 3rd ed. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology, 1998; 180-181.
23. D'Orsi CJ, Bassett LW, Berg WA, et al. Breast imaging reporting and data system: ACR BI-RADS. 4th ed. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology, 2003; 229-251.
24. Heinzen MT, Yankaskas BC, Kwok RK. Comparison of woman-specific versus breast-specific data for reporting screening mammography performance. Acad Radiol 2000; 7:232-236.
25. Geller BM, Barlow WE, Ballard-Barbash R, et al. Use of the American College of Radiology BI-RADS to report on the mammographic evaluation of women with signs and symptoms of breast disease. Radiology 2002; 222:536-542.
26. American Joint Committee on Cancer. Manual for staging of cancer. 5th ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Lippincott, 1997.
27. Keilikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, Sickles EA, Eaton A, Ernster V. Positive predictive value of screening mammography by age and family history of breast cancer. JAMA 1993; 270:2444-2450.
28. Frankel SD, Sickles EA, Curpen BN, Sollitto RA, Ominsky SH, Galvin HB. Initial versus subsequent screening mammography: comparison of findings and their prognostic significance. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1995; 164:1107-1109.
29. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, Sickles EA, Ernster V. Effect of age, breast density, and family history on the sensitivity of first screening mammography. JAMA 1996; 276:33-38.
30. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, Sickles EA, Ernster V. Likelihood ratios for modern screening mammography. risk of breast cancer based on age and mammographic interpretation. JAMA 1996; 276: 39-43.
31. Rosenberg RD, Hunt WC, Williamson MR, et al. Effects of age, breast density, ethnicity, and estrogen replacement therapy on screening mammographic sensitivity and cancer stage at diagnosis: review of 183,134 screening mammograms in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Radiology 1998; 209:511-518.
32. Sickles EA. Periodic mammographic follow-up of probably benign lesions: results in 3184 consecutive cases. Radiology 1991; 179:463-468.
33. Vizcaino I, Gadea L, Sandreo L, et al. Short-term follow-up results in 795 non-palpable probably benign lesions detected at screening mammography. Radiology 2001; 219:475-483.
34. Varas X, Leborgne JH, Leborgne F, Mezzera J, Jaumandreu S, Leborgne F. Revisiting the mammographic follow-up of BIRADS category 3 lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002; 179:691-695.
35. Kopans DB. The positive predictive value of mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1992; 158:521-526.
36. Sickles EA. Auditing your practice. In: Kopans DB, Mendelson EB, eds. 2001 Syllabus: categorical course in breast imaging. Oak Brook, III: Radiological Society of North America, 1995; 81-91.