Positive predictive value of specific mammographic findings according to reader and patient variables

Radiology

Volumn 250, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 648-657

  Venkatesan, Aruna ^a   Chu, Philip ^a   Kerlikowske, Karla ^a   Sickles, Edward A ^a   Smith Bindman, Rebecca ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; BREAST TUMOR; CANCER INVASION; CANCER REGISTRY; CANCER RISK; CLINICAL FEATURE; CLINICAL TRIAL; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; INTRADUCTAL CARCINOMA; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RADIODIAGNOSIS; RADIOLOGIST; TUMOR CALCINOSIS;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; CALCINOSIS; CALIFORNIA; COHORT STUDIES; FEMALE; HUMANS; INCIDENCE; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROGNOSIS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTORS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 62649137776     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2503080541     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Rubin SM, Sandrock C, Ernster VL. Efficacy of screening mammography: a meta-analysis. JAMA 1995;273:149- 154.
2. Berry DA, Cronin KA, Plevritis SK, et al. Effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2005;353:1784-1792.
3. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2005;353:1773-1783.
4. Lijmer JG, Mol BW, Heisterkamp S, et al. Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests. JAMA 1999;282: 1061-1066.
5. Moskowitz M. The predictive value of certain mammographic signs in screening for breast cancer. Cancer 1983;51:1007-1011.
6. Stomper PC, Geradts J, Edge SB, Levine EG. Mammographic predictors of the presence and size of invasive carcinomas associated with malignant microcalcification lesions without a mass. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;181:1679-1684.
7. Hermann G, Janus C, Schwartz IS, Papatestas A, Hermann DG, Rabinowitz JG. Occult malignant breast lesions in 114 patients: relationship to age and the presence of microcalcifications. Radiology 1988;169:321-324.
8. Rosenbloom MB, Lisbona A. A prospective study of 8413 asymptomatic women undergoing mammography. Can Assoc Radiol J 1990;41:207-209.
9. Knutzen AM, Gisvold JJ. Likelihood of malignant disease for various categories of mammographically detected, nonpalpable breast lesions. Mayo Clin Proc 1993;68: 454- 460.
10. Liberman L, Abramson AF, Squires FB, Glassman JR, Morris EA, Dershaw DD. The Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: positive predictive value of mam- mographic features and final assessment categories. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998;171:35- 40.
11. Goedde TA, Frykberg ER, Crump JM, Lay SF, Turetsky DB, Linden SS. The impact of mammography on breast biopsy. Am Surg 1992;58:661- 666.
12. Ciatto S, Cataliotti L, Distante V. Nonpal- pable lesions detected with mammography: review of 512 consecutive cases. Radiology 1987;165:99 -102.
13. Ciatto S, Del Turco MR, Bonardi R, et al. Non-palpable lesions of the breast detected by mammography: review of 1182 consecutive histologically confirmed cases. Eur J Cancer 1994;30A:40- 44.
14. Burrell HC, Pinder SE, Wilson AR, et al. The positive predictive value of mammographic signs: a review of 425 non-palpable breast lesions. Clin Radiol 1996;51:277-281.
15. American College of Radiology. Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS). 3rd ed. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology, 1998.
16. American College of Radiology. Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS). 4th ed. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology, 2003.
17. Leung JW, Sickles EA. Developing asymmetry identified on mammography: correlation with imaging outcome and pathologic findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;188:667- 675.
18. Ernster VL, Ballard-Barbash R, Barlow WE, et al. Detection of DCIS in women undergoing screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94:1546 -1554.
19. Nass S, Ball J, eds. Executive summary: improving breast imaging quality standards. Committee on Improving Mammography Quality Standards. Washington, DC: National Research Council, 2005.
20. Agresti A, Coull BA. Approximate is better than "exact" for interval estimation of binomial proportions. Am Stat 1998;52:119-126.
21. Sickles EA. Findings at mammographic screening on only one standard projection: outcomes analysis. Radiology 1998;208:471-475.
22. Helvie MA, Pennes DR, Rebner M, Adler DD. Mammographic follow-up of low-suspicion lesions: compliance rate and diagnostic yield. Radiology 1991;178:155-158.
23. Sickles EA. Periodic mammographic follow-up of probably benign lesions: results in 3,184 consecutive cases. Radiology 1991;179:463- 468.
24. Varas X, Leborgne F, Leborgne JH. Nonpal- pable, probably benign lesions: role of follow-up mammography. Radiology 1992;184:409- 414.
25. Varas X, Leborgne JH, Leborgne F, Mezzera J, Jaumandreu S, Leborgne F. Revisiting the mammographic follow-up of BI-RADS category 3 lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;179:691- 695.
26. Vizcaino I, Gadea L, Andreo L, et al. Short- termfollow-up results in795 nonpalpable probably benign lesions detected at screen mammography. Radiology 2001;219:475-483.
27. Franceschi D, Crowe JP, Lie S, et al. Not all nonpalpable breast cancers are alike. Arch Surg 1991;126:967-970.
28. Tan YY, Wee SB, Tan MP, Chong BK. Positive predictive value of BI-RADS categorization in an Asian population. Asian J Surg 2004;27:186-191.
29. Kopans DB. The positive predictive value of mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1992; 158:521-526.
30. Sickles EA. The spectrum of breast asymmetries: imaging features, work-up, management. Radiol Clin North Am 2007; 45:765-771.