Performance of clinical mammography: A nationwide study from Denmark

International Journal of Cancer

Volumn 119, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 183-191

  Jensen, Allan ^a   Vejborg, Ilse ^b   Severinsen, Niels ^b   Nielsen, Susanne ^b   Rank, Fritz ^b   Mikkelsen, Gerd Just ^c   Hilden, Jørgen ^a   Vistisen, Borte ^d   Dyreborg, Uffe ^e   Lynge, Elsebeth ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

^b Mental Health Center Glostrup   (Denmark)

^c Sundhedsstyrelsen   (Denmark)

^d STENO DIABETES CENTER   (Denmark)

^e ODENSE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Accuracy; Breast cancer; Mammography; Organization; Sensitivity; Specificity

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER REGISTRY; DENMARK; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGING; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BREAST NEOPLASMS; DENMARK; FALSE POSITIVE REACTIONS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; PHYSICIANS; ROC CURVE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 33646518376     PISSN: 00207136     EISSN: 10970215     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ijc.21811     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Perry NM. Quality assurance in the diagnosis of breast disease. EUSOMA Working Party. Eur J Cancer 2001;37:159-72.
2. Flobbe K, van der Linden ES, Kessels AG, van Engelshoven JM. Diagnostic value of radiological breast imaging in a non-screening population. Int J Cancer 2001;92:616-8.
3. Zonderland HM, Pope TL, Jr, Nieborg AJ. The positive predictive value of the breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) as a method of quality assessment in breast imaging in a hospital population. Eur Radiol 2004;14:1743-50.
4. Eltahir A, Jibril JA, Squair J, Heys SD, Ah-See AK, Needham G, Gilbert FJ, Deans HE, McKean ME, Smart LM, Eremin O. The accuracy of "one-stop" diagnosis for 1,110 patients presenting to a symptomatic breast clinic. J R Coll Surg Edinb 1999;44:226-30.
5. Duijm LE, Guit GL, Zaat JO, Koomen AR, Willebrand D. Sensitivity, specificity and predictive values of breast imaging in the detection of cancer. Br J Cancer 1997;76:377-81.
6. Barlow WE, Lehman CD, Zheng Y, Ballard-Barbash R, Yankaskas BC, Cutter GR, Carney PA, Geller BM, Rosenberg R, Kerlikowske K, Weaver DL, Taplin SH. Performance of diagnostic mammography for women with signs or symptoms of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94:1151-9.
7. Poplack SP, Tosteson AN, Grove MR, Wells WA, Carney PA. Mammography in 53,803 women from the new hampshire mammography network. Radiology 2000;217:832-40.
8. Houssami N, Ciatto S, Irwig L, Simpson JM, Macaskill P. The comparative sensitivity of mammography and ultrasound in women with breast symptoms: an age-specific analysis. Breast 2002;11:125-30.
9. Carney PA, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC, Kerlikowske K, Rosenberg R, Rutter CM, Geller BM, Abraham LA, Taplin SH, Dignan M, Cutter G, Ballard-Barbash R. Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med 2003;138:168-75.
10. Saarenmaa I, Salminen T, Geiger U, Heikkinen P, Hyvarinen S, Isola J, Kataja V, Kokko ML, Kumpulainen E, Karkkainen A, Pakkanen J, Peltonen P, et al. Validity of radiological examinations of patients with breast cancer in different age groups in a population based study. Breast 2001;10:78-81.
11. Saarenmaa I, Salminen T, Geiger U, Heikkinen P, Hyvarinen S, Isola J, Kataja V, Kokko ML, Kumpulainen E, Karkkainen A, Pakkanen J, Peltonen P, et al. The effect of age and density of the breast on the sensitivity of breast cancer diagnostic by mammography and ultasonography. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2001;67:117-23.
12. Skaane P, Engedal K, Skjennald A. Interobserver variation in the interpretation of breast imaging. Comparison of mammography, ultrasonography, and both combined in the interpretation of palpable non-calcified breast masses. Acta Radiol 1997;38:497-502.
13. Sickles EA, Wolverton DE, Dee KE. Performance parameters for screening and diagnostic mammography: specialist and general radiologists. Radiology 2002;224:861-9.
14. Linver MN, Paster SB, Rosenberg RD, Key CR, Stidley CA, King WV. Improvement in mammography interpretation skills in a community radiology practice after dedicated teaching courses: 2-year medical audit of 38,633 cases. Radiology 1992;184:39-43.
15. Elmore JG, Wells CK, Lee CH, Howard DH, Feinstein AR. Variability in radiologists' interpretations of mammograms. N Engl J Med 1994;331:1493-9.
16. Elmore JG, Miglioretti DL, Reisch LM, Barton MB, Kreuter W, Christiansen CL, Fletcher SW. Screening mammograms by community radiologists: variability in false-positive rates. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94:1373-80.
17. Nodine CF, Kundel HL, Mello-Thoms C, Weinstein SP, Orel SG, Sullivan DC, Conant EF. How experience and training influence mammography expertise. Acad Radiol 1999;6:575-85.
18. Elmore JG, Wells CK, Howard DH. Does diagnostic accuracy in mammography depend on radiologists' experience? J Womens Health 1998;7:443-9.
19. Esserman L, Cowley H, Eberle C, Kirkpatrick A, Chang S, Berbaum K, Gale A. Improving the accuracy of mammography: volume and outcome relationships. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94:369-75.
20. 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;215:563-7.
21. Theberge I, Hebert-Croteau N, Langlois A, Major D, Brisson J. Volume of screening mammography and performance in the Quebec population-based Breast Cancer Screening Program. CMAJ 2005;172:195-9.
22. Smith-Bindman R, Chu P, Miglioretti DL, Quale C, Rosenberg RD, Cutter G, Geller B, Bacchetti P, Sickles EA, Kerlikowske K. Physician predictors of mammographic accuracy. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005;97:358-67.
23. 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;156:209-13.
24. Beam CA, Conant EF, Sickles EA. Association of volume and volume-independent factors with accuracy in screening mammogram interpretation. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;95:282-90.
25. Barlow WE, Chi C, Carney PA, Taplin SH, D'Orsi C, Cutter G, Hendrick RE, Elmore JG. Accuracy of screening mammography interpretation by characteristics of radiologists. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004;96:1840-50.
26. Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group. DBCG retningslinjer 2004 [DBCG Guidelines] (In Danish). Copenhagen: Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group, 2004.
27. National Board of Health. Vejledning om diagnostisk udredning af patienter med symptomer på eller hvor der er rejst mistanke om brystkræft. 2. reviderede udgave[Guidelines on diagnostic assessment of patients presenting with signs or symptoms of breast cancer. Second revised edition] (In Danish). Copenhagen: National Board of Health, 1999.
28. http://www.statistikbanken.dk.
29. Lynge E. Mammography screening for breast cancer in Copenhagen April 1991-March 1997. Mammography Screening Evaluation Group. APMIS Suppl 1998;83:1-44.
30. Njor SH, Olsen AH, Bellstrom T, Dyreborg U, Bak M, Axelsson C, Graversen HP, Schwartz W, Lynge E. Mammography screening in the county of Fyn. November 1993-December 1999. APMIS Suppl 2003;110:1-33.
31. Jensen A, Olsen AH, Euler-Chelpin M, Helle NS, Vejborg I, Lynge E. Do nonattenders in mammography screening programmes seek mammography elsewhere? Int J Cancer 2004;113:464-70.
32. American College of Radiology (ACR). Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Atlas (BI-RADS® Atlas). American Reston: College of Radiology, VA 2003.
33. Storm HH. The Danish Cancer Registry, a self-reporting national cancer registration system with elements of active data collection. IARC Sci Publ 1991;95:220-36.
34. http://www.patobank.dk.
35. Day NE, Williams DR, Khaw KT. Breast cancer screening programmes: the development of a monitoring and evaluation system. Br J Cancer 1989;59:954-8.
36. Miglioretti DL, Heagerty PJ. Marginal modeling of multilevel binary data with time-varying covariates. Biostatistics 2004;5:381-98.
37. Efron B, Tibshirani RJ. An Introduction to the Bootstrap. New York: Chapman & Hall, 1993.
38. Tabar L, Fagerberg G, Chen HH, Duffy SW, Smart CR, Gad A, Smith RA. Efficacy of breast cancer screening by age. New results from the Swedish Two-County Trial. Cancer 1995;75:2507-17.
39. Lehman C, Holt S, Peacock S, White E, Urban N. Use of the American College of Radiology BI-RADS guidelines by community radiologists: concordance of assessments and recommendations assigned to screening mammograms. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;179:15-20.
40. Ballard-Barbash R, Taplin SH, Yankaskas BC, Ernster VL, Rosenberg RD, Carney PA, Barlow WE, Geller BM, Kerlikowske K, Edwards BK, Lynch CF, Urban N. Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium: a national mammography screening and outcomes database. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997;169:1001-8.
41. Carney PA, Poplack SP, Wells WA, Littenberg B. The New Hampshire Mammography Network: the development and design of a population-based registry. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996;167:367-72.