Sensitivity and specificity of mammographic screening as practised in Vermont and Norway

British Journal of Radiology

Volumn 85, Issue 1020, 2012, Pages

  Hofvind, Solveig ^a,b   Geller, B M ^c   Skelly, J ^d   Vacek, P M ^d  

^a CANCER REGISTRY OF NORWAY   (Norway)

^b OSLO METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY   (Norway)

^c UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER SCREENING; COMPARATIVE STUDY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; NORWAY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UNITED STATES;

AGE FACTORS; AGED; BREAST NEOPLASMS; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; NORWAY; PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; VERMONT;

EID: 84871150779     PISSN: 00071285     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1259/bjr/15168178     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Hofvind S, Vacek P, Skelly J, Weaver D, Geller B. Comparing screening mammography for early breast cancer detection in Vermont and Norway. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008;100:1082-91.
2. Smith-Bindman R, Ballard-Barbash R, Miglioretti DL, Patnick J, Kerlikowske K. Comparing the performance of mammography screening in the USA and the UK. J Med Screen 2005;12:50-4. (Pubitemid 40445077)
3. Yankaskas BC, Klabunde CN, Ancelle-Park R, Renner G, Wang H, Fracheboud J, et al. International comparison of performance measures for screening mammography: can it be done? J Med Screen 2004;11:187-93. (Pubitemid 40006742)
4. Hofvind S, Yankaskas BC, Bulliard JL, Klabunde CN, Fracheboud J. Comparing interval breast cancer rates in Norway and North Carolina: results and challenges. J Med Screen 2009;16:131-9.
5. Perry N, Broeders MJ, de Wolf C, Törnberg S, Holland R, von Karsa L. European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. European Communities. 2006 [accessed June 2011]. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph-projects/2002/cancer/fp-cancer-2002-ext-guid-01. pdf
6. Regulations on the collection and processing of personal health data in the Cancer Registry of Norway (Cancer Registry Regulations). December 2001 [accessed June 2011]. Available from: www.ub.uio.no/ujur/ulovdata/for-20011221- 1477-eng.doc
7. Hofvind S, Geller B, Vacek P, Thoresen S, Skaane P. Using the European Guidelines to evaluate the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program. Eur J Epidemiol 2007;22:447-55. (Pubitemid 47222954)
8. Geller B, Worden J, Ashley J, Oppenheimer R, Weaver D. Multipurpose statewide breast cancer surveillance system: The Vermont experience. J Registry Mgmt 1996;23:168-74.
9. Ballard-Barbash R, Taplin SH, Yankaskas BC, Ernster VL, Rosenberg RD, Carney PA, et al. Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium: a national mammography screening and outcomes database. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997;169:1001-8. (Pubitemid 27406892)
10. Geller BM, Barlow WE, Ballard-Barbash R, Ernster VL, Yankaskas BC, Sickles EA, et al. Use of the American College of Radiology BI-RADS to report on the mammographic evaluation of women with signs and symptoms of breast disease. Radiology 2002;222:536-42. (Pubitemid 34106132)
11. Food and Drug Administration. Quality Mammography Standards. Final Rules-21 CRF Parts 16 and 900 (docket No. 95N-0192) RIN 0910-AA24 edition. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services; 1997.
12. US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 2009;151:716-26.
13. Smith RA, Cokkinides V, Brooks D, Saslow D, Brawley OW. Cancer screening in the United States, 2009: a review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and issues in cancer screening. CA Cancer J Clin 2010;60:99-119.
14. Harvey SC, Geller B, Oppenheimer RG, Pinet M, Riddell L, Garra B. Increase in cancer detection and recall rates with independent double interpretation of screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;180:1461-7. (Pubitemid 36504645)
15. D'Orsi C, Bassett L, Berg W, Feig SA, Jackson JA, Kopans D, et al. Breast imaging and reporting data system - mammography: Illustrated BI-RADS. 4th ed. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2003.
16. Larsen IK, Sma° stuen M, Johannesen TB, Langmark F, Parkin DM, Bray F, et al. Data quality at the Cancer Registry of Norway: an overview of comparability, completeness, validity and timeliness. Eur J Cancer 2009;45:1218-31.
17. Rosenberg RD, Yankaskas BC, Hunt WC, Ballard-Barbash R, Urban N, Ernster VL, et al. Effect of variations in operational definitions on performance estimates for screening mammography. Acad Radiol 2000;7:1058-68.
18. White E, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC, Geller BM, Rosenberg RD, Kerlikowske K, et al. Biennial versus annual mammography and the risk of late-stage breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004;96:1832-9. (Pubitemid 40081320)
19. Miltenburg GA, Peeters PH, Fracheboud J, Collette HJ. Seventeen-year evaluation of breast cancer screening: the DOM project, The Netherlands. Diagnostisch Onderzoek (investigation) Mammacarcinom. Br J Cancer 1998;78:962-5. (Pubitemid 28430029)
20. Kaas R, Hart AA, Besnard AP, Peterse JL, Rutgers EJ. Impact of mammographic interval on stage and survival after the diagnosis of contralateral breast cancer. Br J Surg 2001;88:123-7. (Pubitemid 32066071)
21. Wu JC, Hakama M, Anttila A, Yen AM, Malila N, Sarkeala T, et al. Estimation of natural history parameters of breast cancer based on non-randomized organized screening data: subsidiary analysis of effects of inter-screening interval, sensitivity, and attendance rate on reduction of advanced cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2010;122:553-66.
22. Thurfjell EL, Lernevall KA, Taube AA. Benefit of independent double reading in a population based mammography screening program. Radiology 1994;191:241-4. (Pubitemid 24098238)
23. Ciatto S, Del Turco MR, Morrone D, Catarzi S, Ambrogetti D, Cariddi A, et al. Independent double reading of screening mammograms. J Med Screen 1995;2:99-101.
24. Hofvind S, Geller BM, Rosenberg RD, Skaane P. Screening-detected breast cancers: discordant independent double reading in a population-based screening program. Radiology 2009;253:652-60.
25. Farria DM, Schmidt ME, Monsees BS, Smith RA, Hildebolt C, Yoffie R, et al. Professional and economic factors affecting access to mammography: a crisis today, or tomorrow? Results from a national survey. Cancer 2005;104:491-8. (Pubitemid 41022804)
26. Elmore JG, Taplin SH, Barlow WE, Cutter GR, D'Orsi CJ, Hendrick RE, et al. Does litigation influence medical practice? The influence of community radiologists' medical malpractice perceptions and experience on screening mammography. Radiology 2005;236:37-46. (Pubitemid 40853292)
27. Blanks RG, Wallis MG, Moss SM. A comparison of cancer detection rates achieved by breast cancer screening programmes by number of readers, for one and two view mammography: results from the UK National Health Service breast screening programme. J Med Screen 1998;5:195-201. (Pubitemid 29035310)
28. Duijm LE, Groenewoud JH, Hendriks JH, de Koning HJ. Independent double reading of screening mammograms in The Netherlands: effect of arbitration following reader disagreements. Radiology 2004;231:564-70. (Pubitemid 38552918)
29. Buist DS, Anderson ML, Haneuse SJ, Sickles EA, Smith RA, Carney PA, et al. Influence of annual interpretive volume on screening mammography performance in the United States. Radiology 2011;259:72-84.
30. Smith-Bindman R, Chu P, Miglioretti DL, Quale C, Rosenberg RD, Cutter G, et al. Physicianpredictors of mammographic accuracy. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005;97:358-67.
31. Mandelson MT, Oestreicher N, Porter PL, White D, Finder CA, Taplin SH, et al. Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:1081-7. (Pubitemid 30616482)