Auditing and Benchmarks in Screening and Diagnostic Mammography

Radiologic Clinics of North America

Volumn 45, Issue 5, 2007, Pages 791-800

  Feig, Stephen A ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ASPIRATION BIOPSY; BREAST CANCER; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY; CANCER INCIDENCE; CANCER MORTALITY; CANCER SCREENING; CANCER STAGING; CANCER SURVIVAL; DISEASE MARKER; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; MAMMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; REVIEW; TUMOR BIOPSY;

BENCHMARKING; BREAST NEOPLASMS; EUROPE; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; MEDICAL AUDIT; NEOPLASM STAGING; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; QUALITY ASSURANCE, HEALTH CARE; RADIOLOGY; UNITED STATES;

EID: 34548649800     PISSN: 00338389     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.rcl.2007.07.001     Document Type: Review

References (52)

1. Humphrey L.L., Helfand M., Chan B.K.S., et al. Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 137 (2002) 347-360
2. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for breast cancer: recommendations and rationale. Ann Intern Med 137 (2002) 344-346
3. Smith R.A., Saslow D., Sawyer K.A., et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast cancer screening: update 2003. CA Cancer J Clin 53 (2003) 141-169
4. Feig S.A. Effect of service screening mammography on population mortality from breast cancer. Cancer 95 (2002) 451-457
5. Tabar L., Yen M.-F., Vitak B., et al. Mammography service screening and mortality in breast cancer patients: 20-year follow-up before and after the introduction of screening. Lancet 361 (2003) 1405-1410
6. Otto S.J., Fracheboud J., Looman C.W.N., et al. Initiation of population-based mammography screening in Dutch municipalities and effect on breast cancer mortality: a systematic review. Lancet 361 (2003) 1411-1417
7. Olsen A.H., Njor S.H., Vejborg I., et al. Breast cancer mortality in Copenhagen after introduction of mammography screening: cohort study. BMJ 330 (2005) 220-224
8. Duffy S.W., Tabar L., Chen T.H.-H., et al. Reduction in breast cancer mortality from organized service screening with mammography: 1. Further confirmation with extended data. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 15 (2006) 45-51
9. Parinven I., Helinius H., Anttila A., et al. Service screening mammography reduces breast cancer mortality among elderly women in Turku. J Med Screen 13 (2006) 34-40
10. Duffy S.W., Tabar L., and Chen T.H.-H. Effect of mammographic service screening on stage at presentation of breast cancers in Sweden. Cancer 109 (2007) 2205-2212
11. Day N.E., Williams D.R.R., and Khaw K.T. Breast cancer screening programmes: the development of a monitoring and evaluation system. Br J Cancer 59 (1989) 954-958
12. Tabar L., Fagerberg G., Duffy S.W., et al. Update of the Swedish two-county program of mammographic screening for breast cancer. Radiol Clin North Am 30 (1992) 187-219
13. Feig S.A. Determination of mammographic screening intervals with surrogate measures for women age 40-49 years. Radiology 193 (1994) 311-314
14. Tabar L., Gad A., Holmberg L., et al. Significant reduction in advanced cancer: results of the first seven years of mammography screening in Kopparberg, Sweden. Diagn Imaging Clin Med 54 (1985) 158-164
15. Michaelson J.S., Satija S., Kopans D.B., et al. Gauging the impact of breast carcinoma screening in terms of tumor size and death rate. Cancer 98 (2003) 2114-2124
16. Wilson J.M.G., and Jungren G. Principles and practice of screening for disease. Public Health Paper (No. 34) (1968), World Health Organization, Geneva p. 26
17. Feig S.A. Adverse effects of screening mammography. Radiol Clin North Am 42 (2004) 807-820
18. D'Orsi C.J. Mammography: will adequate manpower exist?. Radiol Clin North Am 42 (2004) 975-978
19. Bassett L.W., Hendrick R.E., Bassford T.L., et al. Clinical practice guideline number 13: quality determinants of mammography. AHCPR Publication 95-0632 (1994), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, Public Health Service, Rockville (MD) p. 83
20. D'Orsi C.J., Bassett L.W., Feig S.A., et al. Illustrated breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS). 3rd edition (1998), American College of Radiology, Reston (VA) p. 180-181
21. D'Orsi C.J., Bassett L.W., Berg W.A., et al. Breast imaging reporting and data system: ACR BI-RADS. 4th edition (2003), American College of Radiology, Reston (VA) 229-251
22. Hunt K.A., Rosen E.L., and Sickles E.A. Outcome analysis for women undergoing annual versus biennial screening mammography: a review of 24,211 examinations. AJR Am J Roentgenol 173 (1999) 285-289
23. Morrison A.S. Screening for chronic disease. 2nd edition (1992), Oxford University Press, New York
24. Feig S.A. Ductal carcinoma in situ: implications for screening mammography. Radiol Clin North Am 38 (2000) 653-658
25. Sanders M.E., Schuyler P.A., DuPont W.D., et al. The natural history of low-grade ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast in women treated by biopsy only revealed over 30 years of long-term follow-up. Cancer 103 (2005) 2481-2484
26. Collins L.C., Tamini R.M., Baer H.J., et al. Outcome of patients with ductal carcinoma in situ untreated after diagnostic biopsy: results from the Nurses' Health Study. Cancer 103 (2005) 1778-1784
27. Yen M.-F., Tabar L., Smith R.A., et al. Quantifying the potential problem of over diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ in breast cancer screenings. Eur J Cancer 39 (2003) 1746-1754
28. McCann J., Treasure P., and Duffy S. Modeling the impact of detecting and treating carcinoma in situ in a breast screening programme. J Med Screen 11 (2004) 117-125
29. Gallager H.S., and Martin J.E. An orientation to the concept of minimal breast cancer. Cancer 28 (1971) 1505-1507
30. Gallager H.S. Minimal breast cancer: origin of the concept and definition. In: Feig S.A., and McLelland R. (Eds). Breast carcinoma: current diagnosis and treatment (1983), Masson Publishing USA and American College of Radiology, New York 251-256
31. Gallager H.S. Minimal breast cancer: results of treatment and long-term follow-up. In: Feig S.A., and McLelland R. (Eds). Breast carcinoma: current diagnosis and treatment (1983), Masson Publishing USA and American College of Radiology, New York 291-294
32. Sewell C.W. Pathology of high-risk breast lesions and ductal carcinoma in situ. Radiol Clin North Am 42 (2004) 821-830
33. In: Liston J., and Wilson R. (Eds). Quality assurance guidelines for breast cancer screening radiologists. NHS breast screening programmes publication no. 59 (2005), NHS Cancer Screening Programmes, Sheffield (UK)
34. Advisory Committee on Cancer Prevention. Recommendation on cancer screening in the European Union. Eur J Cancer 36 (2000) 1473-1478
35. Roselli del Turco M., Hendrik J.H., and Perry N.M. Radiological guidelines. In: Perry N., Broeders M., de Wolf C.J.M., et al. (Eds). European guidelines for quality assurance in mammography screening. 3rd edition (2001), Office for Official Publications of the European Commission, Luxembourg 366-375
36. Monsees B.S. The Mammography Quality Standards Act: an overview of the regulations and guidance. Radiol Clin North Am 38 (2000) 759-772
37. Ballard-Barbash R., Taplin S.H., Yankaskas B.C., et al. Breast cancer surveillance consortium: a national mammography screening and outcomes database. AJR Am J Roentgenol 169 (1997) 1001-1008
38. Sickles E.A., Miglioretti D.L., Ballard-Barbash R., et al. Performance benchmarks for diagnostic mammography. Radiology 235 (2005) 775-790
39. Rosenberg R.D., Yankaskas B.C., Abraham L.A., et al. Performance benchmarks for screening mammography. Radiology 241 (2006) 55-66
40. In: Hewitt M., and Simone J.V. (Eds). Ensuring the quality of cancer care. National Cancer Policy Board, Institute of Medicine and National Research Council (1999), National Academies Press, Washington DC
41. Smith-Bindman R., Chu P.W., Miglioretti D.L., et al. Comparison of screening mammography in the United States and the United Kingdom. JAMA 290 (2003) 2129-2137
42. Smith-Bindman R., and Kerlikowske K. Optimal recall rates following mammography. [letter to the editor]. JAMA 291 (2004) 821-822
43. Sant M., Allemani C., Berrino F., et al. Breast carcinoma survival in Europe and the United States: a population-based study. Cancer 291 (2004) 715-722
44. Feig S.A. Should there be prescribed standards for screening mammography recall rates?. Breast Diseases, A Year Book Quarterly 15 (2005) 336-359
45. Yankaskas B.C., Cleveland R.J., Schell M.J., et al. Association of recall rates with sensitivity and positive predictive value of screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 177 (2001) 543-549
46. Gur O., Sumkin J.H., Hardesty L.A., et al. Recall and detection rates in screening mammography: a review of clinical experience-implications for practice guidelines. Cancer 100 (2004) 1590-1594
47. Schell M.J., Yankaskas B.C., Ballard-Barbash R., et al. Evidence-based target recall rates for screening mammography. Radiology 243 (2007) 681-689
48. Otten J.D.M., Karssemeijer N., Hendriks J.H.C.L., et al. Effect of recall rate on earlier screen detection of breast cancers based on the Dutch performance indicators. J Natl Cancer Inst 97 (2005) 748-754
49. Elmore J.G., Nakano C.Y., Koepsell T.D., et al. International variation in screening mammography interpretation in community-based programs. J Natl Cancer Inst 95 (2003) 1384-1393
50. Warren-Burhenne L.J. Proficiency in mammography interpretive skills, computer-aided detection and double reading. In: Feig S.A. (Ed). Categorical course in diagnostic radiology: breast imaging, 2005 syllabus (2005), Radiological Society of North America, Oak Brook (IL) 93-106
51. Kopans D.B. The positive predictive value of mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 158 (2002) 521-526
52. In: Nass S., and Ball J. (Eds). Improving breast imaging quality standards. Committee on Improving Mammography Quality Standards, National Research Council (2005), National Academics Press, Washington DC