Detection and selection decisions in the practice of screening mammography

Journal of Policy Analysis and Management

Volumn 23, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 908-920

  Stewart, Thomas R ^a   Mumpower, Jeiyl L ^a  

^a STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ALGORITHM; BIOPSY; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; MEDICAL SOCIETY; MIDDLE AGED; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT SELECTION; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; REVIEW; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UNITED STATES;

ADULT; ALGORITHMS; BIOPSY; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; FEMALE; HEALTH POLICY; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PATIENT SELECTION; PRACTICE GUIDELINES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SOCIETIES, MEDICAL; UNITED STATES;

EID: 4944257862     PISSN: 02768739     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pam.20055     Document Type: Review

References (39)

1. Beam, C.A., Conant, E.F., & Sickles, E.A. (2003). Association of volume and volume-independent factors with accuracy in screening mammogram interpretation. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 95(4), 282-290.
2. Beam, C.A., Layde, P.M., & Sullivan, D.C. (1996). Variability in the interpretation of screening mammograms by US radiologists. Findings from a national sample. Archives of Internal Medicine, 156(2), 209-213.
3. Berg, W.A., Campassi, C., Langenberg, P., & Sexton, M.J. (2000). Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: Inter- and intraobserver variability in feature analysis and final assessment. American Journal of Roentgenology, 174(6), 1769-1777.
4. Berg, W.A., D'Orsi, C.J., Jackson, V.P., Bassett, L.W., Beam, C.A., Lewis, R.S., & Crewson, P.E. (2002). Does training in the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) improve biopsy recommendations or feature analysis agreement with experienced breast imagers at mammography? Radiology, 224(3), 871-880.
5. Chan, H.P., Sahiner, B., Helvie, M.A., Petrick, N., Roubidoux, M.A., Wilson, T.E., Adler, D.D., Paramagul, C., Newman, J.S., & Sanjay-Gopal, S. (1999). Improvement of radiologists' characterization of mammographic masses by using computer-aided diagnosis: An ROC study. Radiology, 212(3), 817-827.
6. de Koning, H.J. (2003). Mammographic screening: Evidence from randomised controlled trials. Annals of Oncology, 14(8), 1185-1189.
7. Elmore, J.G., Barton, M.B., Moceri, V.M., Polk, S., Arena, P.J., & Fletcher, S.W. (1998). Tenyear risk of false positive screening mammograms and clinical breast examinations. New England Journal of Medicine, 338(16), 1089-1096.
8. Elmore, J.G., Miglioretti, D.L., Reisch, L.M., Barton, M. B., Kreuter, W., Christiansen, C.L., & Fletcher, S.W. (2002). Screening mammograms by community radiologists: Variability in false-positive rates. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 94(18), 1373-1380.
9. Elmore, J.G., Nakano, C.Y., Koepsell, T.D., Desnick, L.M., D'Orsi, C.J., & Ransohoff, D.F. (2003). International variation in screening mammography interpretations in community-based programs. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 95(18), 1384-1393.
10. Esserman, L., Cowley, H., Eberle, C., Kirkpatrick, A., Chang, S., Berbaum, K., & Gale, A. (2002). Improving the accuracy of mammography: Volume and outcome relationships. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 94(5), 369-375.
11. Fischer, U., Baum, F., Obenauer, S., Luftner-Nagel, S., von Heyden, D., Vosshenrich, R., & Grabbe, E. (2002). Comparative study in patients with microcalcifications: Full-field digital mammography vs screen-film mammography. European Radiology, 12(11), 2679-2683.
12. Floyd, C.E. Jr., Lo, J.Y., & Tourassi, G.D. (2000). Case-based reasoning computer algorithm that uses mammographic findings for breast biopsy decisions. American Journal of Roentgenology, 175(5), 1347-1352.
13. Getty, D.J., Pickett, R.M., D'Orsi, C.J., & Swets, J.A. (1988). Enhanced interpretation of diagnostic images. Investigations in Radiology, 23, 240-252.
14. Hammond, K.R., Harvey, L.O., & Hastie, R. (1992). Making better use of scientific knowledge: Separating truth from justice. Psychological Science, 3(2), 80-87.
15. Haque, S., Mital, D., & Srinivasan, S. (2002). Advances in biomedical informatics for the management of cancer. Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 980, 287-297.
16. Humphrey, L.L., Helfand, M., Chan, B.K., & Woolf, S.H. (2002). Breast cancer screening: A summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Annals of Internal Medicine, 137(5 Part 1), 347-360.
17. Jiang, Y., Nishikawa, R.M., Schmidt, R.A., Toledano, A.Y., & Doi, K. (2001). Potential of computer-aided diagnosis to reduce variability in radiologists' interpretations of mammograms depicting microcalcifications. Radiology, 220(3), 787-794.
18. Karssemeijer, N., Otten, J.D., Verbeek, A.L., Groenewoud, J.H., de Koning, H.J., Hendriks, J.H., & Holland, R. (2003). Computer-aided detection versus independent double reading of masses on mammograms. Radiology, 227(1), 192-200.
19. Kleit, A.N., & Ruiz, J.F. (2003). False positive mammograms and detection controlled estimation. Health Services Research, 38(4), 1207-1228.
20. Kolb, T.M., Lichy, J., & Newhouse, J.H. (2002). Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: An analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. Radiology, 225(1), 165-175.
21. Kopans, D.B. (2000). Double reading. Radiology Clinics of North America, 38(4), 719-724.
22. Kwek, B.H., Lau, T.N., Ng, F.C., & Gao, F. (2003). Non-consensual double reading in the Singapore Breast Screening Project: Benefits and limitations. Annals of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore, 32(4), 438-441.
23. Liston, J.C., & Dali, B.J. (2003). Can the NHS Breast Screening Programme afford not to double read screening mammograms? Clinical Radiology, 58(6), 474-477.
24. Mumpower, J.L., Nath, R., and Stewart, T.R. (2002). Affirmative action, duality of error, and the consequences of mispredicting the academic performance of African-American college applicants. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 21(1), 63-77.
25. Mushlin, A.I., Kouides, R.W., & Shapiro, D.E. (1998). Estimating the accuracy of screening mammography: A meta-analysis. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 14(2), 143-153.
26. National Breast Cancer Coalition (2003). Position statement on screening mammography, March 2003. Available at: 〈http://www.natlbcc.org/bin/index. asp?strid=560&depid=9&btnid=1〉; accessed June 7, 2004.
27. Nawano, S. (1995). Evaluation of digital mammography in diagnosis of breast cancer. Journal of Digital Imaging, 8(1 Suppl 1), 67-69.
28. Olsen, O., & Gotzsche, P.C. (2001). Cochrane review on screening for breast cancer with mammography. Lancet, 358(9290), 1340-1342.
29. Pauker, S.G., & Kassirer, J.P. (1980). The threshold approach to clinical decision making. New England Journal of Medicine, 302, 1109-1117.
30. Ries, L.A.G., Eisner, M.P., Kosary, C.L., Hankey, B.F., Miller, B.A., Clegg, L., Mariotto, A., Fay, M.P., Feuer, E.J., & Edwards, B.K. (Eds.). (2003). SEER cancer statistics review, 1975-2000, National Cancer Institute. Bethesda, MD. Available at: 〈http://seer.cancer.gov/ csr/1975_2000〉; accessed June 7, 2004.
31. Rimer, B.K., Halabi, S., Sugg Skinner, C., Lipkus, I.M., Strigo, T.S., Kaplan, E.B., & Samsa, G.P. (2002). Effects of a mammography decision-making intervention at 12 and 24 months. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 22(4), 247-257.
32. Roque, A.C., & Andre, T.C. (2002). Mammography and computerized decision systems: A review. Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 980, 83-94.
33. Salzmann, P., Kerlikowske, K., & Phillips, K. (1997). Cost-effectiveness of extending screening mammography guidelines to include women 40 to 49 years of age. Annals of Internal Medicine, 127(11), 955-965.
34. Schwartz, L.M., Woloshin, S., Black, W.C., & Welch, H.G. (1997). The role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammography. Annals of Internal Medicine, 127, 966-972.
35. Schwartz, L.M., Woloshin, S., Sox, H.C., Fischhoff, B., & Welch, H.G. (2000). US women's attitudes to false positive mammography results and detection of ductal carcinoma in situ: Cross sectional survey. British Medical Journal, 320(7250), 1635-1640.
36. Smith-Bindman, R., Chu, P.W., Miglioretti, D.L., Sickles, E.A., Blanks, R., Ballard-Barbash, R., Bobo, J.K., Lee, N.C., Wallis, M.G., Patnick, J., & Kerlikowske, K. (2003). Comparison of screening mammography in the United States and the United Kingdom. Journal of the American Medical Association, 290(16), 2129-2137.
37. Swets, J.A., Dawes, R.M., & Monahan, J. (2000). Psychological science can improve diagnostic decisions. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 1(1), 1-26.
38. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (2002). Guide to clinical preventive services, 3rd edition: Periodic updates: Screening for breast cancer. Available at: 〈http://www.ahcpr.gov/clinic/uspstf/uspsbrca.htm〉; accessed June 7, 2004.
39. Woolf, S.H. (2001). The accuracy and effectiveness of routine population screening with mammography, prostate-specific antigen, and prenatal ultrasound: A review of published scientific evidence. International Journal of Technology Assessment Health Care, 17(3), 275-304.