The use of additional imaging increased specificity and decreased sensitivity in screening mammography

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 58, Issue 9, 2005, Pages 942-950

  Geller, Berta M ^a   Vacek, Pamela M ^a   Skelly, Joan ^b   Harvey, Susan C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Accuracy; Breast; Cancer; Mammography; Observational; Screening

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST BIOPSY; BREAST CANCER; CANCER; CANCER INVASION; CANCER SCREENING; CARCINOMA IN SITU; CHI SQUARE TEST; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DATA ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGING SYSTEM; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; POPULATION RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCREENING TEST; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STANDARD; STUDENT T TEST;

ADULT; AGE FACTORS; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BODY MASS INDEX; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CARCINOMA IN SITU; CARCINOMA, DUCTAL, BREAST; DIAGNOSTIC ERRORS; FAMILY HEALTH; FEMALE; HORMONE REPLACEMENT THERAPY; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM INVASIVENESS; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 23644436046     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.02.009     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. S. Shapiro, E. Coleman, M. Broeders, M. Codd, and H. de Koning Breast cancer screening programmes in 22 countries: current policies, administration and guidelines Int J Epidemiol 27 1998 735 742
2. E. Sickles, W. Weber, H. Galvin, S. Ominsly, and R. Sollitto Baseline screening mammography: One vs. two views per breast AJR 147 1986 1149 1153
3. C. D'Orsi, L. Bassett, W. Berg, S. Feig, V. Jackson, D. Kopans, M. Linver, E. Mendeson, L. Moss, and E. Sickles ACR BI-RADS - breast imaging atlas 4th ed. 2003 American College of Radiology Reston VA
4. M. Pamilo, M. Antitinen, M. Soiva, M. Roiha, and I. Suramo Mammography screening - reasons for recall and the influence of experience on recall in the Finnish system Clin Radiol 41 1990 383 387
5. B. Yankaskas, R. Cleveland, M. Schell, and R. Kozar Association of recall rates with sensitivity and positive predictive values of screening mammography Am J Roentgenol 1 177 2001 543 549
6. R. Smith-Bindman, P.W. Chu, D.L. Miglioretti, E.A. Sickles, R. Blanks, R. Ballard-Barbash, J.K. Bobo, N.C. Lee, M.G. Wallis, J. Patnick, and K. Kerlikowske Comparison of screening mammography in the United States and the United Kingdom JAMA 290 16 2003 2129 2137
7. J. Fracheboud, H. de Koning, and R. Boer Nationwide breast cancer screening program fully implemented in the Netherlands Breast 10 2001 6 11
8. B. Yankaskas, C. Klabunde, R. Ancelle-Park, G. Rennert, H. Wang, J.P.G. Fracheboud, and J.-L. Buillard International comparison of performance measures for screeening mammography: can it be done? J Med Screen 11 4 2004 187 193
9. E.A. Sickles, D.E. Wolverton, and K.E. Dee Performance parameters for screening and diagnostic mammography: specialist and general radiologists Radiology 224 3 2002 861 869
10. J.G. Elmore, D.L. Miglioretti, L.M. Reisch, M.B. Barton, W. Kreuter, C.L. Christiansen, and S.W. Fletcher Screening mammograms by community radiologists: variability in false-positive rates J Natl Cancer Inst 94 18 2002 1373 1380
11. J. Litherland, A. Evans, and A. Wilson The effect of hormone replacement therapy on recall rate in the National Health Service Breast Screening Programme Clin Radiol 52 1997 275 279
12. J. Elmore, C. Wells, D. Howard, and A. Feinstein The impact of clinical history of mammographic interpretation JAMA 277 1997 49 52
13. A. Madan, M. Nguyen, M. Wakabayashi, and D. Beech Magnification views of mammography decrease biopsy rates Am Surg 67 7 2001 687 689
14. J.G. Elmore, M.B. Barton, V.M. Moceri, S. Polk, P.J. Arena, and S.W. Fletcher Ten-year risk of false positive screening mammograms and clinical breast examinations N Engl J Med 338 16 1998 1089 1096
15. G. Ong, J. Austoker, and J. Brett Breast screening: adverse psychological consequences one month after placing women on early recall because of a diagnostic uncertainty. A multicentre study J Med Screen 4 1997 158 168
16. K. Lindfors, J. O'Connor, C. Acredolo, and S. Liston Short-interval follow-up mammography versus immediate core biopsy of beign breast lesions: assessment of patient stress Am J Roentgenol 171 1 1998 55 58
17. J. Lowe, K. Balanda, C.D. Mar, and E. Hawes Pyschological distress in women with abnormal findings in mass mammography screening Cancer 85 1999 1114 1118
18. M. Brown, F. Houn, and E. Sickles Screening mammography in community practice: positive predictive value of abnormal findings and yield of follow-up diagnostic procedures Am J Roentgenol 165 1995 1373 1377
19. D. Gist, J. Llorente, and J. Mayer A clinical algorithm for the management of abnormal mammograms. A community hospital's experience West J Med 166 1 1997 21 28
20. B. Geller, J. Worden, J. Ashley, R. Oppenheimer, and D. Weaver Multipurpose statewide breast cancer surveillance system: the Vermont experience J Registry Manag 23 4 1996 168 174
21. R. Ballard-Barbash, S. Taplin, B. Yankaskas, V. Ernster, R. Rosenberg, P. Carney, W. Barlow, B. Geller, K. Kerlikowske, B. Edwards, C. Lynch, N. Urban, C. Chrvala, C. Key, S. Poplack, J. Worden, and L. Kessler Breast cancer surveillance consortium: a national mammography screening and outcomes database Am J Roentgenol 169 1997 1001 1008
22. P.A. Carney, B.M. Geller, H. Moffett, M. Ganger, M. Sewell, W.E. Barlow, N. Stalnaker, S.H. Taplin, C. Sisk, V.L. Ernster, H.A. Wilkie, B. Yankaskas, S.P. Poplack, N. Urban, M.M. West, R.D. Rosenberg, S. Michael, T.D. Mercurio, and R. Ballard-Barbash Current medicolegal and confidentiality issues in large, multicenter research programs Am J Epidemiol 152 4 2000 371 378
23. B.M. Geller, J.K. Worden, J.A. Ashley, and J.D. Mercurio Practical, legal, and ethical implications for protecting patients' and providers' privacy in a computerized registry J Registry Manag 26 1 1999 11 15
24. K. Kerlikowske, P.A. Carney, B. Geller, M.T. Mandelson, S.H. Taplin, K. Malvin, V. Ernster, N. Urban, G. Cutter, R. Rosenberg, and R. Ballard-Barbash Performance of screening mammography among women with and without a first-degree relative with breast cancer Ann Intern Med 133 11 2000 855 863
25. D.L. Miglioretti, C.M. Rutter, B.M. Geller, G. Cutter, W.E. Barlow, R. Rosenberg, D.L. Weaver, S.H. Taplin, R. Ballard-Barbash, P.A. Carney, B.C. Yankaskas, and K. Kerlikowske Effect of breast augmentation on the accuracy of mammography and cancer characteristics JAMA 291 4 2004 442 450
26. P.A. Carney, D.L. Miglioretti, B.C. Yankaskas, K. Kerlikowske, R. Rosenberg, C.M. Rutter, B.M. Geller, L.A. Abraham, S.H. Taplin, M. Dignan, G. Cutter, and R. Ballard-Barbash Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography [see comment]. [Erratum appears in Ann Intern Med. 2003 May 6;138(9):771.] Ann Intern Med 138 3 2003 168 175
27. M. Pepe, N. Urban, C. Rutter, and G. Longton Design of a study to improve accuracy in reading mammograms J Clin Epidemiol 59 12 1997 1327 1338
28. S. Poplack, A. Tosteson, M. Grove, W. Wells, and P. Carney Mammography in 53, 803 women from the New Hampshire Mammography Network Radiology 217 3 2000 832 840
29. R.D. Rosenberg, B.C. Yankaskas, W.C. Hunt, R. Ballard-Barbash, N. Urban, V.L. Ernster, K. Kerlikowske, B. Geller, P.A. Carney, and S. Taplin Effect of variations in operational definitions on performance estimates for screening mammography Acad Radiol 7 12 2000 1058 1068
30. J.G. Elmore, C.Y. Nakano, T.D. Koepsell, L.M. Desnick, C.J. D'Orsi, and D.F. Ransohoff International variation in screening mammography interpretations in community-based programs J Natl Cancer Inst 95 18 2003 1384 1393
31. L. Berlin The missed breast cancer: perceptions and realities Am J Roentgenol 173 1999 1161 1167
32. A. Strunk, and S. Kenyon Medicolegal considerations in the diagnosis of breast cancer Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 29 2002 43 49
33. G. Rahbar, A.C. Sie, G.C. Hansen, J.S. Prince, M.L. Melany, H.E. Reynolds, V.P. Jackson, J.W. Sayre, and L.W. Bassett Benign versus malignant solid breast masses: US differentiation Radiology 213 3 1999 889 894
34. T. Starvos, D. Thickman, C. Rapp, M. Dennis, S. Parker, and G. Sisney Sold breast ndoules: use of snography to distiguish between benign and malignant lesions Radiology 196 1995 123 134
35. O. Graf, T. Helbich, M. Fuchsjaeger, G. Hopf, M. Morgun, C. Graf, R. Malleck, and E. Sickles Follow-up of palpable circumscribed noncalcified solid breast masses at mammography and US: can biopsy be averted? Radiology 233 2004 850 856
36. E. Sickles Management of probably benign breast lesions Radiol Clin North Am 33 6 1995 1123 1130
37. M.S. Soo, E.L. Rosen, J.A. Baker, T.T. Vo, and B.A. Boyd Negative predictive value of sonography with mammography in patients with palpable breast lesions Am J Roentgenol 177 5 2001 1167 1170
38. N. Houssami, L. Irwig, J.M. Simpson, M. McKessar, S. Blome, and J. Noakes Sydney Breast Imaging Accuracy Study: comparative sensitivity and specificity of mammography and sonography in young women with symptoms Am J Roentgenol 180 4 2003 935 940
39. H. Zonderland, J. Hermans, and E. Coerkamp Ultrasound variables and their prognostic value in a population of 1103 patients with 272 breast cancers Eur Radiol 10 10 2000 1562 1568
40. P. Skaane The additional value of US to mammography in the diagnosis of breast cancer. A prospective study Acta Radiol 40 1999 486 490
41. S.C. Harvey, B. Geller, R.G. Oppenheimer, M. Pinet, L. Riddell, and B. Garra Increase in cancer cetection and recall rates with independent double interpretation of screening mammography Am J Roentgenol 180 5 2003 1461 1467
42. I. Anttinen, M. Pamilo, M. Soiva, and M. Roiha Double reading of mammography screening films - one radiologist or two? Clin Radiol 48 1993 414 421
43. P. Skaane, K. Young, and A. Skjennald Population-based mammography screening: comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading - Oslo I Study Radiology 229 3 2003 877 884
44. S. Ciatto, M.R. Del Turco, G. Risso, S. Catarzi, R. Bonardi, V. Viterbo, P. Gnutti, B. Guglielmoni, L. Pinelli, and A. Pandiscia Comparison of standard reading and computer aided detection (CAD) on a national proficiency test of screening mammography Eur J Radiol 45 2 2003 135 138
45. S. Astley Computer-aided detection from screening mammography Acad Radiol 11 2004 1139 1143
46. M. Linver, S. Paster, R. Rosenberg, C. Key, C. Stidley, and W. King Improvement in mammography interpretation skills in a community radiology practice after dedicated teaching courses: 2-year medical audit of 38,633 cases Radiology 184 1992 39 43