| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Breast Imaging |
1 From the Department of Radiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, CB 7515, 106 Mason Farm Rd, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7515 (B.C.Y.). Affiliations for all other authors are listed at the end of this article. Received January 9, 2004; revision requested March 12; revision received April 20; accepted May 24. Supported by cooperative agreements UO1CA63731, UO1CA63736, UO1CA63740, UO1CA69976, UO1CA70013, UO1CA70040, UO1CA86076, and UO1CA86082 from the National Cancer Institute as part of the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium of the National Cancer Institute. S.H.T. was the principal investigator on grant CA69976. Address correspondence to B.C.Y. (e-mail: bcy@med.unc.edu).
PURPOSE: To evaluate whether there is an association between the number of months since previous mammography (MSPM) and performance measures (sensitivity, specificity, recall rate, cancer detection rate, and positive predictive value) in women who underwent U.S. community-based screening mammography.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from seven registries (Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium) and mammographic data and cancer outcome in regard to 1 213 754 screening mammographic examinations performed in 680 641 women who were 40–89 years old for the years 1996–2000 were used in this study. These data are submitted annually in a standard format to a central statistical coordinating center that is subject to institutional review board approval, quality control, and confidentiality standards. Performance measures were calculated for first and subsequent screening mammography. For subsequent mammography, performance measures were calculated according to categories of MSPM (9–15, 16–20, 21–27, and 
28 months). Receiver operating characteristic and multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to test the association between the number of MSPM and performance measures.
RESULTS: With increasing MSPM in each category from 9–15 to 28 months or more and for first mammographic examinations, respectively, there was increased sensitivity (70.9%, 75.7%, 85.4%, 82.5%, and 88.6%), decreased specificity (93.3%, 92.7%, 91.6%, 91.0%, and 85.9%), increased recall rate (7.0%, 7.6%, 8.8%, 9.4%, and 14.7%), and increased cancer detection rates (3.2, 3.5, 4.5, 4.6, and 6.1 per 1000 mammographic examinations). When the category of 9–15 MSPM was compared with that of 21–27 MSPM, there was a slight increase in positive predictive value from 4.6% to 5.1%. Confidence intervals were narrow and did not overlap. Age affected these associations for all performance measures except sensitivity.
CONCLUSION: Performance measures increased as MSPM increased, except for specificity, which decreased. Time between mammograms is an important factor to consider when audits are reviewed or screening performance measures are compared.
© RSNA, 2005
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  K. Kerlikowske, R. Walker, D. L. Miglioretti, A. Desai, R. Ballard-Barbash, D. S. M. Buist, and for the National Cancer Institute-Sponsored Breast Obesity, Mammography Use and Accuracy, and Advanced Breast Cancer Risk J Natl Cancer Inst, December 3, 2008; 100(23): 1724 - 1733. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 N. F. Jafri, R. S. Ayyala, A. Ozonoff, J. Jordan-Gray, and P. J. Slanetz Screening Mammography: Does Ethnicity Influence Patient Preferences for Higher Recall Rates Given the Potential for Earlier Detection of Breast Cancer? Radiology, December 1, 2008; 249(3): 785 - 791. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Hofvind, P. M. Vacek, J. Skelly, D. L. Weaver, and B. M. Geller Comparing Screening Mammography for Early Breast Cancer Detection in Vermont and Norway J Natl Cancer Inst, August 6, 2008; 100(15): 1082 - 1091. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Taplin, L. Abraham, W. E. Barlow, J. J. Fenton, E. A. Berns, P. A. Carney, G. R. Cutter, E. A. Sickles, D. Carl, and J. G. Elmore Mammography Facility Characteristics Associated With Interpretive Accuracy of Screening Mammography J Natl Cancer Inst, June 18, 2008; 100(12): 876 - 887. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Gromet Comparison of Computer-Aided Detection to Double Reading of Screening Mammograms: Review of 231,221 Mammograms Am. J. Roentgenol., April 1, 2008; 190(4): 854 - 859. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 T. L. Lash, M. P. Fox, D. S.M. Buist, F. Wei, T. S. Field, F. J. Frost, A. M. Geiger, V. P. Quinn, M. U. Yood, and R. A. Silliman Mammography Surveillance and Mortality in Older Breast Cancer Survivors J. Clin. Oncol., July 20, 2007; 25(21): 3001 - 3006. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. Ciatto, N. Houssami, D. Gur, R. M. Nishikawa, R. A. Schmidt, C. E. Metz, J. F. Ruiz, S. A. Feig, R. L. Birdwell, M. N. Linver, et al. Computer-aided screening mammography. N. Engl. J. Med., July 5, 2007; 357(1): 83 - 84. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. J. Fenton, S. H. Taplin, P. A. Carney, L. Abraham, E. A. Sickles, C. D'Orsi, E. A. Berns, G. Cutter, R. E. Hendrick, W. E. Barlow, et al. Influence of Computer-Aided Detection on Performance of Screening Mammography N. Engl. J. Med., April 5, 2007; 356(14): 1399 - 1409. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. D. Keen, J. E. Keen, M. A. Ganott, J. H. Sumkin, and D. Gur Does the Marginal Benefit Exceed the Marginal Cost? Radiology, April 1, 2007; 243(1): 299 - 300. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. L. Miglioretti and P. J. Heagerty Marginal Modeling of Nonnested Multilevel Data using Standard Software Am. J. Epidemiol., February 15, 2007; 165(4): 453 - 463. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. A. Carney, L. A. Abraham, D. L. Miglioretti, K. R. Yabroff, E. A. Sickles, D. S. M. Buist, C. J. Kasales, B. M. Geller, R. D. Rosenberg, M. B. Dignan, et al. Factors Associated with Imaging and Procedural Events Used to Detect Breast Cancer After Screening Mammography Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2007; 188(2): 385 - 392. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. H. Taplin, C. M. Rutter, and C. D. Lehman Testing the effect of computer-assisted detection on interpretive performance in screening mammography. Am. J. Roentgenol., December 1, 2006; 187(6): 1475 - 1482. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C Mello-Thoms The problem of image interpretation in mammography: effects of lesion conspicuity on the visual search strategy of radiologists Br. J. Radiol., December 1, 2006; 79(Special_Issue_2): S111 - S116. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. D. Rosenberg, B. C. Yankaskas, L. A. Abraham, E. A. Sickles, C. D. Lehman, B. M. Geller, P. A. Carney, K. Kerlikowske, D. S. M. Buist, D. L. Weaver, et al. Performance Benchmarks for Screening Mammography Radiology, October 1, 2006; 241(1): 55 - 66. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. A. Ganott, J. H. Sumkin, J. L. King, A. H. Klym, V. J. Catullo, C. S. Cohen, and D. Gur Screening Mammography: Do Women Prefer a Higher Recall Rate Given the Possibility of Earlier Detection of Cancer? Radiology, March 1, 2006; 238(3): 793 - 800. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 K. Kerlikowske, J. Creasman, J. W. T. Leung, R. Smith-Bindman, and V. L. Ernster Differences in Screening Mammography Outcomes Among White, Chinese, and Filipino Women Arch Intern Med, September 12, 2005; 165(16): 1862 - 1868. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| RADIOLOGY | RADIOGRAPHICS | RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE |
