Effect of observing change from comparison mammograms on performance of screening mammography in a large community-based population

Radiology

Volumn 261, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 762-770

  Yankaskas, Bonnie C ^a   May, Ryan C ^b   Matuszewski, Jeanine ^b   Bowling, J Michael ^b   Jarman, Molly P ^a   Schroeder, Bruce F ^c  

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

^b University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill   (United States)

^c EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGE; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; BREAST CARCINOMA; CANCER SCREENING; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INTRADUCTAL CARCINOMA; INVASIVE CARCINOMA; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

ADULT; AGED; BREAST NEOPLASMS; DIAGNOSIS, DIFFERENTIAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; LOGISTIC MODELS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; NORTH CAROLINA; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; REGISTRIES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 81555212321     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.11110653     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. American College of Radiology. ACR practice guideline for the performance of screening and diagnostic mammography. In: Practice guidelines and technical standards. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology, 2008;1-10.
2. Burnside ES, Sickles EA, Sohlich RE, Dee KE. Differential value of comparison with previous examinations in diagnostic versus screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;179(5):1173-1177. (Pubitemid 35204369)
3. Frankel SD, Sickles EA, Curpen BN, Sollitto RA, Ominsky SH, Galvin HB. Initial versus subsequent screening mammography: comparison of findings and their prognostic significance. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1995;164(5):1107-1109.
4. Thurfjell MG, Vitak B, Azavedo E, Svane G, Thurfjell E. Effect on sensitivity and specifi city of mammography screening with or without comparison of old mammograms. Acta Radiol 2000;41(1):52-56.
5. Callaway MP, Boggis CR, Astley SA, Hutt I. The influence of previous films on screening mammographic interpretation and detection of breast carcinoma. Clin Radiol 1997;52(7):527-529.
6. Roelofs AA, Karssemeijer N, Wedekind N, et al. Importance of comparison of current and prior mammograms in breast cancer screening. Radiology 2007;242(1):70-77. (Pubitemid 44956010)
7. Sumkin JH, Holbert BL, Herrmann JS, et al. Optimal reference mammography:a comparison of mammograms obtained 1 and 2 years before the present examination. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;180(2):343-346. (Pubitemid 36135011)
8. Wilson TE, Nijhawan VK, Helvie MA. Normal mammograms and the practice of obtaining previous mammograms:usefulness and costs. Radiology 1996;198(3):661-663. (Pubitemid 26066278)
9. American College of Radiology. ACR BI-RADS: mammography. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology, 2003.
10. Rosenberg RD, Yankaskas BC, Hunt WC, et al. Effect of variations in operational definitions on performance estimates for screening mammography. Acad Radiol 2000;7(12):1058-1068.
11. Miglioretti DL, Heagerty PJ. Marginal modeling of nonnested multilevel data using standard software. Am J Epidemiol 2007;165(4):453-463.
12. Yankaskas BC, Haneuse S, Kapp JM, et al. Performance of first mammography examination in women younger than 40 years. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010;102(10):692-701.