Estimating the relative utility of screening mammography

Medical Decision Making

Volumn 33, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 510-520

  Abbey, Craig K ^a,b   Eckstein, Miguel P ^a   Boone, John M ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

observer performance; relative utility; screening mammography

Indexed keywords

BREAST TUMOR; EARLY DIAGNOSIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; PROBABILITY; RADIOGRAPHY; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; UTILIZATION; ARTICLE; OBSERVER PERFORMANCE; RELATIVE UTILITY; SCREENING MAMMOGRAPHY; UTILIZATION REVIEW;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; PROBABILITY; ROC CURVE;

OBSERVER PERFORMANCE; RELATIVE UTILITY; SCREENING MAMMOGRAPHY;

EID: 84877076262     PISSN: 0272989X     EISSN: 1552681X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X12470756     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Peterson W, Birdsall T, Fox W. The theory of signal detectability. IRE Professional Group on Information Theory. 1954 ; 4: 171-212
2. Tanner WP, Swets JA. A decision-making theory of visual detection. Psychol Rev. 1954 ; 61: 401-9
3. Green DM, Swets JA Signal Detection Theory and Psychophysics. New York: Wiley ; 1966:
4. Pauker SG, Kassirer JP. Therapeutic decision making: a cost-benefit analysis. N Engl J Med. 1975 ; 293: 229-34
5. Schwartz WB, Gorry GA, Kassirer JP, Essig A. Decision analysis and clinical judgment. Am J Med. 1973 ; 55: 459-72
6. Ledley RS, Lusted LB. Reasoning foundations of medical diagnosis; symbolic logic, probability, and value theory aid our understanding of how physicians reason. Science. 1959 ; 130: 9-21
7. Swets A, Pickett RM Evaluation of Diagnostic Systems: Methods from Signal Detection Theory. New York: Academic Press ; 1982:
8. Greiner M, Pfeiffer D, Smith RD. Principles and practical application of the receiver-operating characteristic analysis for diagnostic tests. Prev Vet Med. 2000 ; 45: 23-41
9. Metz CE. ROC analysis in medical imaging: a tutorial review of the literature. Radiol Phys Technol. 2008 ; 1: 2-12
10. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. Radiology. 2002 ; 225: 165-75
11. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Rubin SM, Sandrock C, Ernster VL. Efficacy of screening mammography: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 1995 ; 273: 149-54
12. Humphrey LL, Helfand M, Chan BK, Woolf SH. Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2002 ; 137: 347-60
13. Ichikawa LE, Barlow WE, Anderson ML, Taplin SH, Geller BM, Brenner RJ. Time trends in radiologists' interpretive performance at screening mammography from the community-based Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, 1996-2004. Radiology. 2010 ; 256: 74-82
14. Metz CE. Basic principles of ROC analysis. Semin Nucl Med. 1978 ; 8: 283-98
15. Metz CE. ROC methodology in radiologic imaging. Invest Radiol. 1986 ; 21: 720-33
16. Obuchowski NA. ROC analysis AJR Am J Roentgenol.. 2005 ; 184: 364-72
17. Chakraborty DP, Winter LH. Free-response methodology: alternate analysis and a new observer-performance experiment. Radiology. 1990 ; 174: 873-81
18. Chakraborty DP. Recent advances in observer performance methodology: jackknife free-response ROC (JAFROC). Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2005 ; 114: 26-31
19. Chakraborty DP. Validation and statistical power comparison of methods for analyzing free-response observer performance studies. Acad Radiol. 2008 ; 15: 1554-66
20. Gur C, Rockette HE, Armfield DR, et al. Prevalence effect in a laboratory environment. Radiology. 2003 ; 228: 10-4
21. Gur C, Bandos AI, Fuhrman CR, Klym AH, King JL, Rockette HE. The prevalence effect in a laboratory environment: changing the confidence ratings. Acad Radiol. 2007 ; 14: 49-53
22. Gur D, Bandos AI, Cohen CS, et al. The "laboratory" effect: comparing radiologists' performance and variability during prospective clinical and laboratory mammography interpretations. Radiology. 2008 ; 249: 47-53
23. Hilden J. The area under the ROC curve and its competitors. Med Decis Making. 1991 ; 11: 95-101
24. Moons KG, Stijnen T, Michel BC, et al. Application of treatment thresholds to diagnostic-test evaluation: an alternative to the comparison of areas under receiver operating characteristic curves. Med Decis Making. 1997 ; 17: 447-54
25. McClish DK. Analyzing a portion of the ROC curve. Med Decis Making. 1989 ; 9: 190-5
26. Jiang Y, Metz CE, Nishikawa RM. A receiver operating characteristic partial area index for highly sensitive diagnostic tests. Radiology. 1996 ; 201: 745-50
27. Metz CE, Pan X. "Proper" binormal ROC curves: theory and maximum-likelihood estimation. J Math Psychol. 1999 ; 43: 1-33
28. Sunshine J. Contributed comment. Acad Radiol. 1995 ; 2: S72-4
29. Halpern EJ, Alber M, Krieger AM, Metz CE, Maidment AD. Comparison of receiver operating characteristic curves on the basis of optimal operating points. Acad Radiol. 1996 ; 3: 245-53
30. Feig SA. Economic challenges in breast imaging: a survivor's guide to success. Radiol Clin North Am. 2000 ; 38: 843-52
31. Sickles EA. Successful methods to reduce false-positive mammography interpretations. Radiol Clin North Am. 2000 ; 38: 693-700
32. 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: 1773-83
33. Pisano ED, Gatsonis CA, Yaffe MJ, et al. American College of Radiology Imaging Network digital mammographic imaging screening trial: objectives and methodology. Radiology. 2005 ; 236: 404-12
34. Jiang Y, Metz CE. BI-RADS data should not be used to estimate ROC curves. Radiology. 2010 ; 256: 29-31
35. Baker SG. Putting risk prediction in perspective: relative utility curves. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009 ; 101: 1538-42
36. Alonzo TA, Brinton JT, Ringham BM, Glueck DH. Bias in estimating accuracy of a binary screening test with differential disease verification. Stat Med. 2011 ; 30: 1852-64
37. Toledano AY, Gatsonis C. Generalized estimating equations for ordinal categorical data: arbitrary patterns of missing responses and missingness in a key covariate. Biometrics. 1999 ; 55: 488-96
38. Zhou XH. Correcting for verification bias in studies of a diagnostic test's accuracy. Stat Methods Med Res. 1998 ; 7: 337-53
39. Zhou XH, Higgs RE. Assessing the relative accuracies of two screening tests in the presence of verification bias. Stat Med. 2000 ; 19: 1697-705
40. Baker SG, Pinsky PF. A proposed design and analysis for comparing digital and analog mammography. J Am Stat Assoc. 2001 ; 96: 421-8
41. Metz CE, Herman BA, Shen JH. Maximum likelihood estimation of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves from continuously-distributed data. Stat Med. 1998 ; 17: 1033-53
42. Dorfman CC, Berbaum KS, Brandser EA. A contaminated binormal model for ROC data, part I: some interesting examples of binormal degeneracy. Acad Radiol. 2000 ; 7: 420-6
43. Dorfman DD, Berbaum KS. A contaminated binormal model for ROC data, part II: a formal model. Acad Radiol. 2000 ; 7: 427-37
44. Dorfman DD, Berbaum KS. A contaminated binormal model for ROC data, part III: initial evaluation with detection ROC data. Acad Radiol. 2000 ; 7: 438-47
45. Abbey CK, Eckstein MP, Boone JM. An equivalent relative utility metric for evaluating screening mammography. Med Decis Making. 2010 ; 30: 113-22
46. Boone JM, Lindfors KK, Seibert JA. Determining sensitivity of mammography from screening data, cancer incidence, and receiver-operating characteristic curve parameters. Med Decis Making. 2002 ; 22: 228-37
47. Wagner RF, Beam CA, Beiden SV. Reader variability in mammography and its implications for expected utility over the population of readers and cases. Med Decis Making. 2004 ; 24: 561-72
48. Barlow WE, Chi C, Carney PA, et al. Accuracy of screening mammography interpretation by characteristics of radiologists. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004 ; 96: 1840-50
49. Gur C, Bandos AI, Rockette HE, et al. Is an ROC-type response truly always better than a binary response in observer performance studies?. Acad Radiol. 2010 ; 17: 639-45
50. Youden WJ. Index for rating diagnostic tests. Cancer. 1950 ; 3: 32-5
51. Perkins NJ, Schisterman EF. The inconsistency of "optimal" cutpoints obtained using two criteria based on the receiver operating characteristic curve. Am J Epidemiol. 2006 ; 163: 670-5
52. Hofvind S, Vacek PM, Skelly J, Weaver DL, Geller GM. Comparing screening mammography for early breast cancer detection in Vermont and Norway. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008 ; 100: 1082-91
53. Jensen A, Geller BM, Gard CC, et al. Performance of diagnostic mammography differs in the United States and Denmark. Int J Cancer. 2010 ; 127: 1905-12
54. Macmillan NA, Creelman CD Detection Theory: A User's Guide. Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates; ; 2005:
55. Hambly NM, McNicholas MM, Phelan N, Hargaden GC, O'Doherty A, Flanagan FL. Comparison of digital mammography and screen-film mammography in breast cancer screening: a review in the Irish breast screening program. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009 ; 193: 1010-8