Short-term outcomes of screening mammography using computer-aided detection a population-based study of medicare enrollees

Annals of Internal Medicine

Volumn 158, Issue 8, 2013, Pages 580-587

  Fenton, Joshua J ^a   Xing, Guibo ^a   Elmore, Joann G ^b   Bang, Heejung ^c   Chen, Steven L ^d   Lindfors, Karen K ^a   Baldwin, Laura Mae ^e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^d CITY OF HOPE NATIONAL MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST BIOPSY; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER INCIDENCE; CANCER SCREENING; CANCER SIZE; CANCER STAGING; COHORT ANALYSIS; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; ECHOMAMMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; GROUPS BY AGE; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; INTRADUCTAL CARCINOMA; INVASIVE CARCINOMA; LYMPH NODE; MAMMOGRAPHY; MEDICARE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; POPULATION RESEARCH; PREVALENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIODIAGNOSIS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; UNITED STATES;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CARCINOMA, INTRADUCTAL, NONINFILTRATING; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; FEMALE; HUMANS; INCIDENCE; LYMPHATIC METASTASIS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; MEDICARE; NEOPLASM STAGING; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SEER PROGRAM; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84876389554     PISSN: 00034819     EISSN: 15393704     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-158-8-201304160-00002     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Fenton JJ, Foote SB, Green P, Baldwin LM. Diffusion of computer-aided mammography after mandated Medicare coverage. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170: 987-9.
2. Rao VM, Levin DC, Parker L, Cavanaugh B, Frangos AJ, Sunshine JH. How widely is computer-aided detection used in screening and diagnostic mam-mography? J Am Coll Radiol. 2010;7:802-5.
3. Gross CP, Long JB, Ross JS, Abu-Khalaf MM, Wang R, Killelea BK, et al. The cost of breast cancer screening in the Medicare population. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173:220-6.
4. Bazzocchi M, Mazzarella F, Del Frate C, Girometti R, Zuiani C. CAD systems for mammography: a real opportunity? A review of the literature. Radiol Med. 2007;112:329-53.
5. Cupples TE, Cunningham JE, Reynolds JC. Impact of computer-aided de-tection in a regional screening mammography program. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;185:944-50.
6. Freer TW, Ulissey MJ. Screening mammography with computer-aided detec-tion: prospective study of 12,860 patients in a community breast center. Radiol-ogy. 2001;220:781-6.
7. Morton MJ, Whaley DH, Brandt KR, Amrami KK. Screening mammo-grams: interpretation with computer-aided detection-prospective evaluation. Radiology. 2006;239:375-83.
8. Romero C, Varela C, Muñoz E, Almenar A, Pinto JM, Botella M. Impact on breast cancer diagnosis in a multidisciplinary unit after the incorporation of mam-mography digitalization and computer-aided detection systems. AJR Am J Roent-genol. 2011;197:1492-7.
9. Brancato B, Houssami N, Francesca D, Bianchi S, Risso G, Catarzi S, et al. Does computer-aided detection (CAD) contribute to the performance of digital mammography in a self-referred population? Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008;111: 373-6.
10. Gilbert FJ, Astley SM, Gillan MG, Agbaje OF, Wallis MG, James J, et al; CADET II Group. Single reading with computer-aided detection for screening mammography. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:1675-84.
11. van den Biggelaar FJ, Kessels AG, van Engelshoven JM, Boetes C, Flobbe K. Computer-aided detection in full-field digital mammography in a clinical population: performance of radiologist and technologists. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010;120:499-506.
12. Gur D, Sumkin JH, Rockette HE, Ganott M, Hakim C, Hardesty L, et al. Changes in breast cancer detection and mammography recall rates after the in-troduction of a computer-aided detection system. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004;96: 185-90.
13. Taylor P, Potts HW. Computer aids and human second reading as inter-ventions in screening mammography: two systematic reviews to compare effects on cancer detection and recall rate. Eur J Cancer. 2008;44:798-807.
14. Povyakalo AA, Alberdi E, Strigini L, Ayton P. How to Discriminate be-tween Computer-Aided and Computer-Hindered Decisions: A Case Study in Mammography. Med Decis Making. 2013;33:98-107.
15. Fenton JJ, Taplin SH, Carney PA, Abraham L, Sickles EA, D'Orsi C, et al. Influence of computer-aided detection on performance of screening mammogra-phy. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:1399-409.
16. Fenton JJ, Abraham L, Taplin SH, Geller BM, Carney PA, D'Orsi C, et al; Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Effectiveness of computer-aided detec-tion in community mammography practice. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103:1152-61.
17. Gromet M. Comparison of computer-aided detection to double reading of screening mammograms: review of 231,221 mammograms. AJR Am J Roent-genol. 2008;190:854-9.
18. Karssemeijer N, Bluekens AM, Beijerinck D, Deurenberg JJ, Beekman M, Visser R, et al. Breast cancer screening results 5 years after introduction of digital mammography in a population-based screening program. Radiology. 2009;253: 353-8.
19. Autier P, Héry C, Haukka J, Boniol M, Byrnes G. Advanced breast cancer and breast cancer mortality in randomized controlled trials on mammography screening. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:5919-23.
20. Duffy SW, Tabar L, Vitak B, Day NE, Smith RA, Chen HH, et al. The relative contributions of screen-detected in situ and invasive breast carcinomas in reducing mortality from the disease. Eur J Cancer. 2003;39:1755-60.
21. Nelson HD, Tyne K, Naik A, Bougatsos C, Chan B, Nygren P, et al. Screening for Breast Cancer: Systematic Evidence Review Update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Evidence Review Update No. 74. AHRQ Pub-lication No. 10-05142-EF-1. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2009.
22. Jiang Y, Miglioretti DL, Metz CE, Schmidt RA. Breast cancer detection rate: designing imaging trials to demonstrate improvements. Radiology. 2007; 243:360-7.
23. Warren JL, Klabunde CN, Schrag D, Bach PB, Riley GF. Overview of the SEER-Medicare data: content, research applications, and generalizability to the United States elderly population. Med Care. 2002;40:IV-3-18.
24. Baldwin LM, Adamache W, Klabunde CN, Kenward K, Dahlman C, L Warren J. Linking physician characteristics and Medicare claims data: issues in data availability, quality, and measurement. Med Care. 2002;40:IV-82-95.
25. Fenton JJ, Zhu W, Balch S, Smith-Bindman R, Fishman P, Hubbard RA. Distinguishing screening from diagnostic mammograms using Medicare claims data. Med Care. 2012. Aug 23. [Epub ahead of print]
26. Edge SB, Byrd DR, Compton CC, Fritz AG, Greene FL, Trotti A, eds. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. 7th ed. New York: Springer; 2010.
27. Fenton JJ, Zhu W, Balch S, Smith-Bindman R, Lindfors KK, Hubbard RA. External validation of Medicare claims codes for digital mammography and computer-aided detection. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2012;21:1344-7.
28. Yankaskas BC, Taplin SH, Ichikawa L, Geller BM, Rosenberg RD, Carney PA, et al. Association between mammography timing and mea-sures of screening performance in the United States. Radiology. 2005; 234:363-73.
29. Yasmeen S, Xing G, Morris C, Chlebowski RT, Romano PS. Comorbidi-ties and mammography use interact to explain racial/ethnic disparities in breast cancer stage at diagnosis. Cancer. 2011;117:3252-61.
30. Neuhaus JM. Assessing change with longitudinal and clustered binary data. Annu Rev Public Health. 2001;22:115-28.
31. Fenton JJ, Green P, Baldwin LM. Internal validation of procedure codes on Medicare claims for digital mammograms and computer-aided detection. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2009;18:2186-9.
32. Lin DY, Psaty BM, Kronmal RA. Assessing the sensitivity of regression results to unmeasured confounders in observational studies. Biometrics. 1998;54: 948-63.
33. Kalager M, Adami HO, Bretthauer M, Tamimi RM. Overdiagnosis of invasive breast cancer due to mammography screening: results from the Norwe-gian screening program. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156:491-9.
34. Mandelblatt JS, Cronin KA, Bailey S, Berry DA, de Koning HJ, Draisma G, et al; Breast Cancer Working Group of the Cancer Intervention and Sur-veillance Modeling Network. Effects of mammography screening under different screening schedules: model estimates of potential benefits and harms. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:738-47.
35. Kerlikowske K, Salzmann P, Phillips KA, Cauley JA, Cummings SR. Continuing screening mammography in women aged 70 to 79 years: impact on life expectancy and cost-effectiveness. JAMA. 1999;282:2156-63.
36. Brewer NT, Salz T, Lillie SE. Systematic review: the long-term effects of false-positive mammograms. Ann Intern Med. 2007;146:502-10.
37. Hersh AL, Stefanick ML, Stafford RS. National use of postmenopausal hormone therapy: annual trends and response to recent evidence. JAMA. 2004; 291:47-53.
38. Miglioretti DL, Gard CC, Carney PA, Onega TL, Buist DS, Sickles EA, et al. When radiologists perform best: the learning curve in screening mammo-gram interpretation. Radiology. 2009;253:632-40.
39. Zheng B, Ganott MA, Britton CA, Hakim CM, Hardesty LA, Chang TS, et al. Soft-copy mammographic readings with different computer-assisted detec-tion cuing environments: preliminary findings. Radiology. 2001;221:633-40.
40. Taplin SH, Rutter CM, Lehman CD. Testing the effect of computer-assisted detection on interpretive performance in screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;187:1475-82.
41. Carney PA, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC, Kerlikowske K, Rosenberg R, Rutter CM, et al. Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138:168-75.
42. Tice JA, Cummings SR, Smith-Bindman R, Ichikawa L, Barlow WE, Kerlikowske K. Using clinical factors and mammographic breast density to esti-mate breast cancer risk: development and validation of a new predictive model. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148:337-47.