Evidence-based target recall rates for screening mammography

Radiology

Volumn 243, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 681-689

  Schell, Michael J ^a   Yankaskas, Bonnie C ^b   Ballard Barbash, Rachel ^d   Qaqish, Bahjat F ^c   Barlow, William E ^e   Rosenberg, Robert D ^f   Smith Bindman, Rebecca ^g  

^a H LEE MOFFITT CANCER CENTER AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

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

^c IL   (United States)

^d NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

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

^g UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER REGISTRY; CANCER SCREENING; CLINICAL PRACTICE; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; FEMALE; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; LINEAR REGRESSION ANALYSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RECALL; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; STATISTICAL MODEL; UNITED STATES;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BREAST NEOPLASMS; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; FALSE NEGATIVE REACTIONS; FALSE POSITIVE REACTIONS; FEMALE; HUMANS; INCIDENCE; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UNITED STATES;

EID: 34249078613     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2433060372     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. Smith-Bindman R, Ballard-Barbash R, Miglioretti DL, Patnick J, Kerlikowske K. Comparing the performance of mammography screening in the USA and the UK. J Med Screen 2005;12: 50-54.
4. Barlow WE, Chi C, Carney PA, et al. Accuracy of screening mammography interpretation by characteristics of radiologists. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004;96:1840-1850.
5. 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.
6. Recommendations on cancer screening in the European union. Advisory Committee on Cancer Prevention. Eur J Cancer 2000;36: 1473-1478.
7. Roselli del Turco M, Hendriks JH, Perry NM. Radiological guidelines. In: Perry NM, Broeder M, de Wolf CJM, Tornberg S, eds. European guidelines for quality assurance in mammography screening. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. 2001; 366.
8. Quality determinants of mammography. Quality Determinants of Mammography Guidelines Panel. Rockville, Md: United States Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, 1994; 78-86.
9. Feig SA, D'Orsi CJ, Hendrick RE, et al. American College of Radiology guidelines for breast cancer screening. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998;171:29-33.
10. 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.
11. Sickles EA, Miglioretti DL, Ballard-Barbash R, et al. Performance benchmarks for diagnostic mammography. Radiology 2005;235: 775-790.
12. 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.
13. American College of Radiology. ACR BIRADS mammography. In: ACR Breast Imaging Reporting and Database System. Breast Imaging Atlas. 4th ed. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology, 2003.
14. Robertson T, Wright FT, Dykstra RL. Order restricted statistical inference. New York, NY: Wiley, 1988.
15. Schell MJ, Singh B. The reduced regression method. J Am Stat Assoc 1997;92:128-135.
16. Pinckney RG, Geller BM, Burman M, Littenberg B. Effect of false-positive mammograms on return for subsequent screening mammography. Am J Med 2003;114:120-125.
17. Burton MB, Moore S, Polk S, Shtatland E, Elmore JG, Fletcher SW. Increased patient concern after false-positive mammograms: clinician documentation and subsequent ambulatory visits. J Gen Med Intern 2001;16: 150-156.
18. Brett J, Bankhead C, Henderson B, Watson E, Anstoker J. The psychological impact of mammographic screening: a systematic review. Psychooncology 2005;14:917-938.
19. Yankaskas BC, Klabunde CN, Ancelle-Park R, et al. International comparison of performance measures for screening mammography: can it be done? J Med Screen 2004;11:187-193.
20. Gur D, Sumkin JH, Hardesty LA, et al. Recall and detection rates in screening mammography: a review of clinical experience - implications for practice guidelines. Cancer 2004;100:1590-1594.
21. Hardesty LA, Klym AH, Shindel EE, Chough DM, Sumkin JH, Gur D. Is maximum positive predictive value a good indicator of an optimal screening mammography practice? AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;184:1505-1507.
22. Otten JD, Karssemeijer N, Hendriks JH, et al. Effect of recall rate on earlier screen detection of breast cancers based on the Dutch performance indicators. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005;97:748-754.