How does age affect baseline screening mammography performance measures? A decision model

BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making

Volumn 8, Issue , 2008, Pages

  Keen, John D ^a   Keen, James E ^b  

^a Jr Hospital of Cook County   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA LINCOLN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGE DISTRIBUTION; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY; CANCER INCIDENCE; CANCER REGISTRY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; PREVALENCE; SCREENING TEST; AGE; BREAST TUMOR; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DECISION TREE; MASS SCREENING; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PREDICTION AND FORECASTING; RADIOGRAPHY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STANDARD;

ADULT; AGE FACTORS; AGED; BREAST NEOPLASMS; DECISION TREES; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PREVALENCE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 53649100535     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14726947     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1472-6947-8-40     Document Type: Article

References (81)

1. Screening for breast cancer. JG Elmore K Armstrong CD Lehman SW Fletcher, JAMA 2005 293 10 1245 1256 10.1001/jama.293.10.1245 15755947
2. Clinical practice. Mammographic screening for breast cancer. SW Fletcher JG Elmore, N Engl J Med 2003 348 17 1672 1680 10.1056/NEJMcp021804 12711743
3. Clinical strategies for breast cancer screening: weighing and using the evidence. R Harris L Leininger, Ann Intern Med 1995 122 7 539 547 7872591
4. Breast Cancer Screening for Women Ages 40-49. NIH Consensus Statement Online 1997 Jan 21-23. 1997 15 1 35
5. Screening mammography at 40-49 years: regret or no regret? B Djulbegovic GH Lyman, Lancet 2006 368 9552 2035 2037 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69816-4 17161713
6. Informed decision making: age of 50 is arbitrary and has no demonstrated influence on breast cancer screening in women. DB Kopans, AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005 185 1 177 182 16060005
7. Women need better information about routine mammography. H Thornton A Edwards M Baum, BMJ 2003 327 7406 101 103 12855532 10.1136/bmj.327.7406.101
8. Screening mammography for women 40 to 49 years of age: a clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians. A Qaseem V Snow K Sherif M Aronson KB Weiss DK Owens, Ann Intern Med 2007 146 7 511 515 17404353
9. Information and involvement preferences of women in their 40s before their first screening mammogram. L Nekhlyudov R Li SW Fletcher, Arch Intern Med 2005 165 12 1370 1374 10.1001/archinte.165.12.1370 15983285
10. Women's understanding of the mammography screening debate. S Woloshin LM Schwartz SJ Byram HC Sox B Fischhoff HG Welch, Arch Intern Med 2000 160 10 1434 1440 10.1001/archinte.160.10.1434 10826455
11. Are benefits and harms in mammography screening given equal attention in scientific articles? A cross-sectional study. KJ Jorgensen A Klahn PC Gotzsche, BMC Med 2007 5 12 17537243 10.1186/1741-7015-5-12
12. Women's perception of the benefits of mammography screening: population-based survey in four countries. G Domenighetti B D'Avanzo M Egger F Berrino T Perneger P Mosconi M Zwahlen, Int J Epidemiol 2003 32 5 816 821 10.1093/ije/dyg257 14559757
13. Screening mammography in women 40 to 49 years of age: a systematic review for the American College of Physicians. K Armstrong E Moye S Williams JA Berlin EE Reynolds, Ann Intern Med 2007 146 7 516 526 17404354
14. US women's attitudes to false positive mammography results and detection of ductal carcinoma in situ: cross sectional survey. LM Schwartz S Woloshin HC Sox B Fischhoff HG Welch, BMJ 2000 320 7250 1635 1640 10856064 10.1136/bmj.320.7250.1635
15. Women's views on breast cancer risk and screening mammography: a qualitative interview study. E Silverman S Woloshin LM Schwartz SJ Byram HG Welch B Fischhoff, Med Decis Making 2001 21 3 231 240 10.1177/02729890122062523 11386630
16. Improving breast imaging quality standards. SJ Nass J Ball, Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press 2005
17. Breast cancer screening. http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/ screening/breast/HealthProfessional/page2
18. Decision analysis and simulation modeling for evaluating diagnostic tests on the basis of patient outcomes. SK Plevritis, AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005 185 3 581 590 16120903
19. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2002. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute, Ries LAG EMP, Kosary CL, Hankey BF, Miller BA, Clegg L, Mariotto A, Feuer EJ, Edwards BK, 2004
20. Clinical epidemiology: the essentials. RH Fletcher SW Fletcher, Baltimore: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 4 2005
21. Screening for preclinical disease: test and disease characteristics. CR Herman HK Gill J Eng LL Fajardo, AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002 179 4 825 831 12239019
22. Screening sensitivity and sojourn time from breast cancer early detection clinical trials: mammograms and physical examinations. Y Shen M Zelen, J Clin Oncol 2001 19 15 3490 3499 11481355
23. The randomized trials of breast cancer screening: what have we learned? RA Smith SW Duffy R Gabe L Tabar AM Yen TH Chen, Radiol Clin North Am 2004 42 5 793 806 10.1016/j.rcl.2004.06.014 15337416
24. Breast cancer yield for screening mammographic examinations with recommendation for short-interval follow-up. K Kerlikowske R Smith-Bindman LA Abraham CD Lehman BC Yankaskas R Ballard-Barbash WE Barlow JH Voeks BM Geller PA Carney, Radiology 2005 234 3 684 692 10.1148/radiol.2343031976 15734926
25. Evidence-based target recall rates for screening mammography. MJ Schell BC Yankaskas R Ballard-Barbash BF Qaqish WE Barlow RD Rosenberg R Smith-Bindman, Radiology 2007 243 3 681 689 10.1148/radiol.2433060372 17517927
26. Association between mammography timing and measures of screening performance in the United States. BC Yankaskas SH Taplin L Ichikawa BM Geller RD Rosenberg PA Carney K Kerlikowske R Ballard-Barbash GR Cutter WE Barlow, Radiology 2005 234 2 363 373 10.1148/radiol.2342040048 15670994
27. Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS). Reston, Va: American College of Radiology 4 2003
28. Principles of cancer screening. R Clark, Semin Roentgenol 2003 38 1 7 18 10.1016/S0037-198X(03)00014-2 12698587
29. Clinical evaluation of diagnostic tests. S Weinstein NA Obuchowski ML Lieber, AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005 184 1 14 19 15615943
30. Receiver operating characteristic analysis: a tool for the quantitative evaluation of observer performance and imaging systems. CE Metz, J Am Coll Radiol 2006 3 6 413 422 10.1016/j.jacr.2006.02.021 17412096
31. Performance benchmarks for screening mammography. RD Rosenberg BC Yankaskas LA Abraham EA Sickles CD Lehman BM Geller PA Carney K Kerlikowske DS Buist DL Weaver, Radiology 2006 241 1 55 66 10.1148/radiol.2411051504 16990671
32. BCSC Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. http://breastscreening. cancer.gov/data/performance/
33. Physician predictors of mammographic accuracy. R Smith-Bindman P Chu DL Miglioretti C Quale RD Rosenberg G Cutter B Geller P Bacchetti EA Sickles K Kerlikowske, J Natl Cancer Inst 2005 97 5 358 367 15741572
34. Screening for breast cancer: recommendations and rationale. Ann Intern Med 2002 137 5 Part 1 344 346 12204019
35. Effect of variations in operational definitions on performance estimates for screening mammography. RD Rosenberg BC Yankaskas WC Hunt R Ballard-Barbash N Urban VL Ernster K Kerlikowske B Geller PA Carney S Taplin, Acad Radiol 2000 7 12 1058 1068 10.1016/S1076-6332(00)80057-4 11131050
36. Estimating the accuracy of screening mammography: a meta-analysis. AI Mushlin RW Kouides DE Shapiro, Am J Prev Med 1998 14 2 143 153 10.1016/S0749-3797(97)00019-6 9631167
37. Detection of ductal carcinoma in situ in women undergoing screening mammography. VL Ernster R Ballard-Barbash WE Barlow Y Zheng DL Weaver G Cutter BC Yankaskas R Rosenberg PA Carney K Kerlikowske, J Natl Cancer Inst 2002 94 20 1546 1554 12381707
38. Likelihood ratios for modern screening mammography. Risk of breast cancer based on age and mammographic interpretation. K Kerlikowske D Grady J Barclay EA Sickles V Ernster, JAMA 1996 276 1 39 43 10.1001/jama.276.1.39 8667537
39. Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. PA Carney DL Miglioretti BC Yankaskas K Kerlikowske R Rosenberg CM Rutter BM Geller LA Abraham SH Taplin M Dignan, Ann Intern Med 2003 138 3 168 175 12558355
40. Performance benchmarks for diagnostic mammography. EA Sickles DL Miglioretti R Ballard-Barbash BM Geller JW Leung RD Rosenberg R Smith-Bindman BC Yankaskas, Radiology 2005 235 3 775 790 10.1148/radiol.2353040738 15914475
41. Pathologic findings from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium: population-based outcomes in women undergoing biopsy after screening mammography. DL Weaver RD Rosenberg WE Barlow L Ichikawa PA Carney K Kerlikowske DS Buist BM Geller CR Key SJ Maygarden, Cancer 2006 106 4 732 742 10.1002/cncr.21652 16411214
42. Comparison of screening mammography in the United States and the United kingdom. R Smith-Bindman PW Chu DL Miglioretti EA Sickles R Blanks R Ballard-Barbash JK Bobo NC Lee MG Wallis J Patnick, JAMA 2003 290 16 2129 2137 10.1001/jama.290.16.2129 14570948
43. Breast cancer screening among low-income or uninsured women: results from the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program, July 1995 to March 2002 (United States). CR Eheman VB Benard D Blackman HW Lawson C Anderson W Helsel NC Lee, Cancer Causes Control 2006 17 1 29 38 10.1007/s10552-005-4558-y 16411050
44. Trends in recall, biopsy, and positive biopsy rates for screening mammography in an academic practice. D Gur LP Wallace AH Klym LA Hardesty GS Abrams R Shah JH Sumkin, Radiology 2005 235 2 396 401 10.1148/radiol.2352040422 15770039
45. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. PC Gotzsche M Nielsen, Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006 4 CD001877 17054145
46. The sea of uncertainty surrounding ductal carcinoma in situ-the price of screening mammography. HG Welch S Woloshin LM Schwartz, J Natl Cancer Inst 2008 100 4 228 229 10.1093/jnci/djn013 18270336
47. Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. LL Humphrey M Helfand BK Chan SH Woolf, Ann Intern Med 2002 137 5 Part 1 347 360 12204020
48. Benefits and risks of screening mammography for women in their forties: a statistical appraisal. DA Berry, J Natl Cancer Inst 1998 90 19 1431 1439 10.1093/jnci/90.19.1431 9776408
49. Does the marginal benefit exceed the marginal cost? JD Keen JE Keen, Radiology 2007 243 1 299 300 author reply 300. 10.1148/radiol.2431060486 17392264
50. Will screening mammography save my life? JD Keen JE Keen, American Roentgen Ray Society 107th annual meeting: 2007 Orlando: American Roentgen Ray Society 2007 A39
51. Local therapy and survival in breast cancer. RS Punglia M Morrow EP Winer JR Harris, N Engl J Med 2007 356 23 2399 2405 10.1056/NEJMra065241 17554121
52. Breast cancer screening: controversies and future directions. M Retsky R Demicheli W Hrushesky, Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2003 15 1 1 8 10.1097/00001703-200302000-00001 12544495
53. Understanding breast cancer risk. Saving women's lives: strategies for improving breast cancer detection and diagnosis Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, Joy JE, Penhoet EE, Petitti DB, 2005 123 154
54. Assessing the risk of breast cancer. K Armstrong A Eisen B Weber, N Engl J Med 2000 342 8 564 571 10.1056/NEJM200002243420807 10684916
55. Polygenes, risk prediction, and targeted prevention of breast cancer. PD Pharoah AC Antoniou DF Easton BA Ponder, N Engl J Med 2008 358 26 2796 2803 10.1056/NEJMsa0708739 18579814
56. Breast cancer screening for women aged 40 to 49 years-what does the evidence mean for New Zealand? S Baker M Wall A Bloomfield, N Z Med J 2005 118 1221 U1628 16138166
57. Should women under 50 be screened for breast cancer? S Moss, Br J Cancer 2004 91 3 413 417 10.1038/sj.bjc.6601966 15213718
58. Improving breast cancer screening services. Saving women's lives: strategies for improving breast cancer detection and diagnosis Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, Joy JE, Penhoet EE, Petitti DB, 2005 63 122
59. Participation in mammography screening. LM Schwartz S Woloshin, BMJ 2007 335 7623 731 732 17932162 10.1136/bmj.39350.590625.80
60. Breast cancer screening discussions for women in their forties. LS Kinsinger R Harris, Breast Dis 2001 13 21 32 15687619
61. Informed decision making: what is its role in cancer screening? BK Rimer PA Briss PK Zeller EC Chan SH Woolf, Cancer 2004 101 5 Suppl 1214 1228 10.1002/cncr.20512 15316908
62. Age-related differences in breast carcinoma knowledge, beliefs, and perceived risk among women visiting an academic general medicine practice. NC Dolan AM Lee MM McDermott, Cancer 1997 80 3 413 420 10.1002/(SICI)1097- 0142(19970801)80:3<413::AID-CNCR9>3.0.CO;2-S 9241075
63. Risk-based recommendations for mammographic screening for women in their forties. M Gail B Rimer, J Clin Oncol 1998 16 9 3105 3114 9738582
64. Risk communication formats for low probability events: an exploratory study of patient preferences. JG Dolan S Iadarola, BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2008 8 14 18402680 10.1186/1472-6947-8-14
65. Decision analysis in patient care. G Elwyn A Edwards M Eccles D Rovner, Lancet 2001 358 9281 571 574 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)05709-9 11520546
66. Screening mammography in women 40 to 49 years of age. MD Lisby, Am Fam Physician 2004 70 9 1750 1752 15554494
67. Is screening for breast cancer cost-effective? AI Mushlin L Fintor, Cancer 1992 69 7 Suppl 1957 1962 10.1002/1097-0142(19920401)69:7+<1957::AID- CNCR2820691716>3.0.CO;2-T 1544100
68. Use of decision aids to support informed choices about screening. A Barratt L Trevena HM Davey K McCaffery, BMJ 2004 329 7464 507 510 15331483 10.1136/bmj.329.7464.507
69. When is measuring sensitivity and specificity sufficient to evaluate a diagnostic test, and when do we need randomized trials? SJ Lord L Irwig RJ Simes, Ann Intern Med 2006 144 11 850 855 16754927
70. Should I request computer aided diagnosis with my baseline or subsequent screening mammogram? JD Keen, Radiologic Society of North America 92rd scientific assembly and annual meeting: 2006 Chicago: Radiologic Society of North America 2006 565
71. Influence of computer-aided detection on performance of screening mammography. JJ Fenton SH Taplin PA Carney L Abraham EA Sickles C D'Orsi EA Berns G Cutter RE Hendrick WE Barlow, N Engl J Med 2007 356 14 1399 1409 10.1056/NEJMoa066099 17409321
72. Beyond the 10% rule: How does the optimal recall rate for a single screening mammogram vary with a woman's age? JD Keen, Radiologic Society of North America 93rd scientific assembly and annual meeting: 2007 Chicago: Radiologic Society of North America 2007 340
73. Age-related accuracy of screening mammography: how should it be measured? SA Feig, Radiology 2000 214 3 633 640 10715022
74. Model of outcomes of screening mammography: information to support informed choices. A Barratt K Howard L Irwig G Salkeld N Houssami, BMJ 2005 330 7497 936 15755755 10.1136/bmj.38398.469479.8F
75. Utilization of screening mammography in New Hampshire: a population-based assessment. PA Carney ME Goodrich T Mackenzie JE Weiss SP Poplack WS Wells L Titus-Ernstoff, Cancer 2005 104 8 1726 1732 10.1002/cncr.21365 16158386
76. Modeling the dissemination of mammography in the United States. KA Cronin B Yu M Krapcho DL Miglioretti MP Fay G Izmirlian R Ballard-Barbash BM Geller EJ Feuer, Cancer Causes Control 2005 16 6 701 712 10.1007/s10552-005-0693-8 16049809
77. Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST. ED Pisano RE Hendrick MJ Yaffe JK Baum S Acharyya JB Cormack LA Hanna EF Conant LL Fajardo LW Bassett, Radiology 2008 246 2 376 383 10.1148/radiol.2461070200 18227537
78. Results of a survey on digital screening mammography: prevalence, efficiency, and use of ancillary diagnostic AIDS. TM Haygood GJ Whitman EN Atkinson RG Nikolova SY Sandoval PJ Dempsey, J Am Coll Radiol 2008 5 4 585 592 10.1016/j.jacr.2007.10.019 18359447
79. Sharper digital breast exams can add anxiety. D Grady, New York Times, National edn. New York CLVII April 10, 2008: A1, A16.
80. Dot size, lead time, fallibility, and impact on survival: continuing controversies in mammography. L Berlin, AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001 176 5 1123 1130 11312164
81. Mammography screening can survive malpractice. if radiologists take center stage and assume the role of educator. L Berlin, Radiology 2004 233 3 641 644 10.1148/radiol.2333040016 15564402