HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 2352040422v1 235/2/396    most recent Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Gur, D. Articles by Sumkin, J. H. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Gur, D. Articles by Sumkin, J. H.

Trends in Recall, Biopsy, and Positive Biopsy Rates for Screening Mammography in an Academic Practice¹

¹ From the Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh and Magee-Womens Hospital of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, 300 Halket St, Imaging Research, Suite 4200, Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3180. Received March 9, 2004; revision requested May 11; final revision received July 21; accepted August 4. Supported in part by grants CA77850 and CA84241 from the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health. Address correspondence to D.G. (e-mail: gurd@upmc.edu).

PURPOSE: To retrospectively evaluate whether recall, biopsy, and positive biopsy rates for a group of radiologists who met requirements of Mammography Quality Standards Act of 1992 (MQSA) demonstrated any change over time during a 27-month period (nine consecutive calendar quarters).

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approved study protocol, and informed consent was waived. All screening mammograms that had been interpreted by MQSA-qualified radiologists between January 1, 2001, and March 31, 2003, were reviewed. Group recall rates, biopsy rates, and detected cancer rates for nine calendar quarters were computed and attributed to performance date of original screening mammogram. Type of biopsy performed was classified as follows: stereotactic vacuum-assisted biopsy, ultrasonography (US)-guided core biopsy, US-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy, surgical excision, and multiple biopsies. ² Test for trend (two sided) and linear regression were used to assess trends over time for recall and biopsy rates, biopsy rates according to type of biopsy performed, and percentage of biopsy results positive for cancer.

RESULTS: Group recall rate did not show a statistically significant trend during period studied (P = .59). Biopsy rates increased significantly from 13.02 to 20.12 per 1000 screening examinations (P < .001). A corresponding substantial decrease was seen in percentage of biopsies in which malignancy was found, although this trend was not statistically significant (P = .24). A significant increase (from 4.72 to 9.88 per 1000 screening examinations) was found in rate of stereotactic vacuum-assisted 11-gauge core biopsies performed (P < .001).

CONCLUSION: Observed increase in biopsy rates reinforces the need to carefully select patients for biopsy to achieve efficient, efficacious, and cost-effective programs for early detection of breast cancers.

© RSNA, 2005

This article has been cited by other articles:

				E. S. Burnside, D. L. Rubin, J. P. Fine, R. D. Shachter, G. A. Sisney, and W. K. Leung Bayesian Network to Predict Breast Cancer Risk of Mammographic Microcalcifications and Reduce Number of Benign Biopsy Results: Initial Experience Radiology, September 1, 2006; 240(3): 666 - 673. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. K. Plevritis, A. W. Kurian, B. M. Sigal, B. L. Daniel, D. M. Ikeda, F. E. Stockdale, and A. M. Garber Cost-effectiveness of screening BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with breast magnetic resonance imaging. JAMA, May 24, 2006; 295(20): 2374 - 2384. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. L. Ellis, D. Gur, A. H. Klym, and J. H. Sumkin Regarding Trends in Recall, Biopsy, and Positive Biopsy Rates for Screening Mammography Radiology, January 1, 2006; 238(1): 375 - 376. [Full Text] [PDF]