Factors associated with imaging and procedural events used to detect breast cancer after screening mammography

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 188, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 385-392

  Carney, Patricia A ^a,b   Abraham, Linn A ^c   Miglioretti, Diana L ^c   Yabroff, K Robin ^d   Sickles, Edward A ^e   Buist, Diana S M ^c   Kasales, Claudia J ^a   Geller, Berta M ^f   Rosenberg, Robert D ^g   Dignan, Mark B ^h   Weaver, Donald L ⁱ   Kerlikowske, Karla ^e  

^a DARTMOUTH MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^b OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c CENTER FOR HEALTH STUDIES   (United States)

^d NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT   (United States)

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

^h Cooper Institute ^*  (United States)

ⁱ UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Breast biopsy; Breast cancer screening; Breast neoplasms; Mammography; Sonography

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST BIOPSY; BREAST CANCER; CANCER SCREENING; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; ECHOGRAPHY; EVALUATION; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY; LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; STATISTICAL MODEL; SYMPTOMATOLOGY;

ADULT; AGED; BIOPSY; BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; PHYSICIAN'S PRACTICE PATTERNS; PREVALENCE; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RISK ASSESSMENT; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 33846522862     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/AJR.05.1718     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Ciatto S, Visioli C, Paci E, Zappa M. Breast density as a determinant of interval cancer at mammographic screening. Br J Cancer 2004; 90:393-396
2. Leconte I, Feger C, Galant C, et al. Mammography and subsequent whole-breast sonography of nonpalpable breast cancers: the importance of radiologic breast density. AJR 2003; 180:1675-1679
3. Buist DS, Porter PL, Lehman C, Taplin SH, White E. Factors contributing to mammography failure in women aged 40-49 years. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004; 96:1432-1440
4. Connor P, Savne G, Azavendo E, et al. Mammographic breast density, hormones, and growth factors during continuous combined hormone therapy. Fertil Steril 2004; 81:1617-1623
5. Christodoulakos GE, Lambrinoudaki IV, Panoulis KP, et al. The effect of various regimens of hormone replacement therapy on mammographic breast density. Maturitas 2003; 45:109-118
6. Sickles EA, Wolverton DE, Dee KE. Performance parameters for screening and diagnostic mammography: specialist and general radiologists. Radiology 2002; 224:861-869
7. Barlow WE, Lehman CD, Zheng Y, et al. Performance of diagnostic mammography for women with signs or symptoms of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002; 94:1151-1159
8. Poplack SP, Tosteson AN, Grove M, Wells WA, Carney PA. The practice of mammography in 53,803 women from the New Hampshire Mammography Network. Radiology 2000; 217:832-840
9. Carney PA, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC, et al. Individual and combined effects of breast density, age, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med 2003; 138:168-175
10. Ernster VL, Ballard-Barbash R, Barlow WE, et al. Detection of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) in women undergoing screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002; 94:1546-1554
11. Kerlikowske K, Carney P, 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
12. Gur D, Sumkin JH, Hardesty LA, et al. Recall and detection rates in screening mammography. Cancer 2004; 100:1590-1594
13. 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
14. Yankaskas BC, Cleveland RJ, Schell MJ, Kozar R. Association of recall rates with sensitivity and positive predictive values of screening mammography. AJR 2001; 177:543-549
15. Carney PA, Kasales CJ, Tosteson AN, et al. Types of additional work-up among women undergoing routine screening mammography: the impact of age, breast density and hormone therapy use. Prev Med 2004; 39:48-55
16. Kerlikowske K, Smith-Bindman R, Abraham L, et al. Breast cancer yield for examinations recommended for short interval follow-up after screening views only versus a diagnostic work-up. Radiology 2005; 234:684-692
17. Kerlikowske KM, Grady DG, 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
18. Yoshihara K, Kisu T, Koizumi S, et al. The clinical epidemiological investigation of diagnostic modalities in breast cancer detection: a comparison of ultrasonography and mammography. Fukuoka Igaku Zasshi 1999; 90:39-45
19. Kerlikowske K, Smith-Bindman R, Ljung BM, Grady D. Evaluation of abnormal mammography results and palpable breast abnormalities. Ann Intern Med 2003; 139:274-284
20. 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
21. Taplin SH, Ichikawa L, Kerlikowske K, et al. Concordance of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Assessment and management recommendations in screening mammography. Radiology 2002; 222:529-535
22. Brett J, Austoker J. Women who are recalled for further investigation for breast screening: psychological consequences 3 years after recall and factors affecting re-attendance. J Public Health Med 2001; 23:292-300
23. Weiss NS. Breast cancer mortality in relation to clinical breast examination and breast self-examination. Breast J 2003; 9 [suppl 2]:S86-S89
24. Ballard-Barbash R, Taplin SH, Yankaskas BC, et al. Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium: a national mammography screening and outcomes database. AJR 1997; 169:1001-1008
25. American College of Radiology. Breast imaging and reporting data system (BI-RADS), 3rd ed. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 1998
26. Carney PA, Geller BM, Moffett H, et al. Current medico-legal and confidentiality issues in large multi-center research programs. Am J Epidemiol 2000; 152:371-378
27. Yankaskas BC, Taplin SH, Ichikawa L, et al. Association of timing of mammogram on screening performance. Radiology 2005; 234:363-373
28. Aiello EJ, Buist DS, White E, Seger D, Taplin SH. Rate of breast cancer diagnoses among postmenopausal women with self-reported breast symptoms. J Am Board Fam Pract 2004; 17:408-415
29. Sickles EA, Miglioretti DL, Ballard-Barbash R, et al. Performance benchmarks for diagnostic mammography. Radiology 2005; 235:775-790
30. Poplack SP, Carney PA, Weiss JE, Titus-Ernstoff L, Goodrich ME, Tosteson AN. Screening mammography: costs and screening-related services. Radiology 2005; 234:79-85
31. Ghate SV, Soo MS, Baker JA, Walsh R, Gimenez EI, Rosen EL. Comparison of recall and cancer detection rates for immediate versus batch interpretation of screening mammograms. Radiology 2005; 235:31-35