Association between mammography timing and measures of screening performance in the United States

Radiology

Volumn 234, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 363-373

  Yankaskas, Bonnie C ^a   Taplin, Stephen H ^b,c   Ichikawa, Layra ^c   Geller, Berta M ^d   Rosenberg, Robert D ^e   Carney, Patricia A ^f   Kerlikowske, Karla ^g   Ballard Barbash, Rachel ^b   Cutter, Gary R ^h,i   Barlow, William E ^j  

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

^b NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

^c CENTER FOR HEALTH STUDIES   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^f NORRIS COTTON CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^g UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^h UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM   (United States)

ⁱ Cooper Institute ^*  (United States)

^j UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; JOB PERFORMANCE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; MULTIVARIATE LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; POPULATION RESEARCH; PREDICTION AND FORECASTING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; RECALL; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; TIME;

ADULT; AGE FACTORS; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; ROC CURVE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TIME FACTORS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 19944430591     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2342040048     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Frazier EL, Jiles RB, Mayberry R. Use of screening mammography and clinical breast examinations among black, Hispanic, and white women. Prev Med 1996; 25:118-125.
2. Blackman DK, Bennett EM, Miller DS. Trends in self-reported use of mammograms (1989-1997) and Papanicolaou tests (1991-1997): behavioral risk factor surveillance system. MMWR CDC Surveill Summ 1999; 48:1-22.
3. Breen N, Wagener DK, Brown ML, Davis WW, Ballard-Barbash R. Progress in cancer screening over a decade: results of cancer screening from the 1987, 1992, and 1998 National Health Interview Surveys. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001; 93:1704-1713.
4. Smith RA, Cokkinides V, Eyre HJ, American Cancer Society. American Cancer Society guidelines for the early detection of cancer, 2003. CA Cancer J Clin 2003; 53: 27-43.
5. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for breast cancer: recommendations and rationale. Ann Intern Med 2002; 137(5 pt 1):344-346.
6. 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.
7. National Cancer Institute. Available at: http://breastscreening.cancer. gov/. Accessed 2003.
8. Carney PA, Geller BM, Moffett H, et al. Current medicolegal and confidentiality issues in large, multicenter research programs. Am J Epidemiol 2000; 152:371-378.
9. D'Orsi C, Bassett LW, Feig SA, et al. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. 3rd ed. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology, 1998; 165-181.
10. Rosenberg RD, Yankaskas BC, Hunt WC, et al. Effect of variations in operational definitions on performance estimates for screening mammography. Acad Radiol 2000; 7:1058-1068.
11. Taplin SH, Ichikawa LE, Kerlikowske K, et al. Concordance of breast imaging reporting and data system assessments and management recommendations in screening mammography. Radiology 2002; 222:529-535.
12. Carney PA, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC, et al. Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med 2003; 138:168-175.
13. Litherland JC, Evans AJ, Wilson AR. The effect of hormone replacement therapy on recall rate in the National Health Service Breast Screening Programme. Clin Radiol 1997; 52:276-279.
14. Stomper PC, Van Voorhis BJ, Ravnikar VA, Meyer JE. Mammographic changes associated with postmenopausal hormone replacement therapy: a longitudinal study. Radiology 1990; 174:487-490.
15. Berkowitz JE, Gatewood OM, Goldblum LE, Gayler BW. Hormone replacement therapy: mammographic manifestations. Radiology 1990; 174:199-201.
16. Cyrlak D, Wong CH. Mammographic changes in postmenopausal women undergoing hormonal replacement therapy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1993; 161:1177-1183.
17. Laya MB, Larson EB, Taplin SH, White E. Effect of estrogen replacement therapy on the specificity and sensitivity of screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst 1996; 88:643-649.
18. Kerlikowske K, Carney PA, Geller B, et al. Performance of screening mammography among women with and without a first-degree relative with breast cancer. Ann Intern Med 2000; 133:855-863.
19. Tosteson AN, Begg CB. A general regression methodology for ROC curve estimation. Med Decis Making 1988; 8:204-215.
20. Williams RS, Brook D, Monypenny IJ, Gower-Thomas K. The relevance of reported symptoms in a breast screening programme. Clin Radiol 2002; 57:725-729.
21. Doyle TC, Elwood JM, Smale P, et al. Clinical outcomes of the Otago-Southland Breast Cancer Screening Programme 1991-1996. N Z Med J 1998; 111:380-383.
22. Fracheboud J, de Koning HJ, Beemsterboer PM, et al. Nation-wide breast cancer screening in the Netherlands: results of initial and subsequent screening 1990-1995. National Evaluation Team for Breast Cancer Screening. Int J Cancer 1998; 75:694-698.
23. Kavanagh AM, Mitchell H, Giles GG. Hormone replacement therapy and accuracy of mammographic screening. Lancet 2000; 355:270-274.
24. Libstug AR, Moravan V, Aitken SE. Results from the Ontario breast screening program, 1990-1995. J Med Screen 1998; 5:73-80.
25. Paquette D, Snider J, Bouchard F, et al. Performance of screening mammography in organized programs in Canada in 1996. The Database Management Sub-committee to the National Committee for the Canadian Breast Cancer Screening Initiative. Can Med Assoc J 2000; 163: 1133-1138.
26. Thurfjell E. Population-based mammography screening in clinical practice: results from the prevalence round in Uppsala county. Acta Radiol 1994; 35:487-491.
27. Vizcaino I, Salas D, Vilar JS, 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; 206: 253-260.
28. 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.
29. Blanks RG, Moss SM, Patnick J. Results from the UK NHS breast screening programme, 1994-1999. J Med Screen 2000; 7:195-198.
30. 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.
31. 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.
32. Lynge E, Olsen AH, Fracheboud J, Patnick J. Reporting of performance indicators of mammography screening in Europe. Eur J Cancer Prev 2003; 12:213-222.
33. Robinson JI, Crane CE, King JM, Scarce DI, Hoffmann CE. The South Australian Breast X-Ray Service: results from a state-wide mammographic screening programme. Br J Cancer 1996; 73:837-842.
34. Olivotto IA, Kan L, d'Yachkova Y, et al. Ten years of breast screening in the Screening Mammography Program of British Columbia, 1988-97. J Med Screen 2000; 7:152-159.
35. Doyle GJ, McLean L. Unilateral increase in mammographic density with hormone replacement therapy. Clin Radiol 1994; 49:50-51.
36. Kavanagh AM, Giles GG, Mitchell H, Cawson JN. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value of screening mammography and symptomatic status. J Med Screen 2000; 7:105-110.
37. 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.
38. Rickard M, Donnellan M. Diagnosis of small sized invasive breast cancer by an Australian mammography screening service: surrogate end-points for mortality reduction. Aust N Z J Surg 1998; 68:415-418.
39. 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.
40. Field LR, Wilson TE, Strawderman M, Gabriel H, Helvie MA. Mammographic screening in women more than 64 years old: a comparison of 1- and 2-year intervals. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998; 170: 961-965.
41. Ernster VL, Ballard-Barbash R, Barlow WE, et al. Detection of ductal carcinoma in situ in women undergoing screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002; 94:1546-1554.
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. Jatoi I, Miller AB. Why is breast-cancer mortality declining? Lancet Oncol 2003; 4:251-254.
44. Quinn MJ. Cancer trends in the United States: a view from Europe. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003; 95:1258-1261.
45. Sant M, Allemani C, Berrino F, et al. Breast carcinoma survival in Europe and the United States. Cancer 2004; 100:715-722.