| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Breast Imaging |
1 From the Departments of Radiology (E.A.S., J.W.T.L., R.S.B.) and Epidemiology/Biostatistics (R.S.B.), University of California San Francisco School of Medicine, 1600 Divisadero St, Rm H-2801, San Francisco, CA 94115; Center for Health Studies, Group Health Cooperative, Seattle, Wash (D.L.M.); Applied Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Md (R.B.B.); Office of Health Promotion Research, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vt (B.M.G.); Department of Radiology, University of New Mexico-HSC, Albuquerque, NM (R.D.R.); and Department of Radiology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC (B.C.Y.). Received April 23, 2004; revision requested July 2; revision received July 20; accepted August 18. Supported by grants U01CA63740 (E.A.S.), U01CA86076 (D.L.M.), U01CA70013 (B.M.G.), U0169976 (R.D.R.), U01CA70040 (B.C.Y.), U01CA63731 (Group Health Cooperative, Diana Buist principal investigator), and U01CA86082–01 (New Hampshire Mammography Network, Patricia Carney principal investigator) from the National Cancer Institute; K07CA86032 (R.S.B.) from the NIH. Address correspondence to E.A.S. (e-mail: edward.sickles@ucsfmedctr.org).
PURPOSE: To evaluate a range of performance parameters pertinent to the comprehensive auditing of diagnostic mammography examinations, and to derive performance benchmarks therefrom, by pooling data collected from large numbers of patients and radiologists that are likely to be representative of mammography practice in the United States.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval was met, informed consent was not required, and this study was Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliant. Six mammography registries contributed data to the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC), providing patient demographic and clinical information, mammogram interpretation data, and biopsy results from defined population-based catchment areas. The study involved 151 mammography facilities and 646 interpreting radiologists. The study population included women 18 years of age or older who underwent at least one diagnostic mammography examination between 1996 and 2001. Collected data were used to derive mean performance parameter values, including abnormal interpretation rate, positive predictive value (for abnormal interpretation, biopsy recommended, and biopsy performed), cancer diagnosis rate, invasive cancer size, and the percentages of minimal cancers, axillary node-negative invasive cancers, and stage 0 and I cancers. Additional benchmarks were derived for these performance parameters, including 10th, 25th, 50th (median), 75th, and 90th percentile values.
RESULTS: The study involved 332 926 diagnostic mammography examinations. Mean performance parameter values were abnormal interpretation rate, 8.0%; positive predictive value for abnormal interpretation, 31.4%; positive predictive value for biopsy recommended, 31.5%; positive predictive value for biopsy performed, 39.5%; cancer diagnosis rate, 25.3 per 1000 examinations; invasive cancer size, 20.2 mm; percentage of minimal cancers, 42.0%; percentage of axillary node-negative invasive cancers, 73.6%; and percentage of stage 0 and I cancers, 62.4%.
CONCLUSION: The presented BCSC outcomes data and performance benchmarks may be used by mammography facilities and individual radiologists to evaluate their own performance for diagnostic mammography as determined by means of periodic comprehensive audits.
© RSNA, 2005
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  E. J. A. Bowles, D. L. Miglioretti, E. A. Sickles, L. Abraham, P. A. Carney, B. C. Yankaskas, and J. G. Elmore Accuracy of Short-Interval Follow-Up Mammograms by Patient and Radiologist Characteristics Am. J. Roentgenol., May 1, 2008; 190(5): 1200 - 1208. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. A. Tice, S. R. Cummings, R. Smith-Bindman, L. Ichikawa, W. E. Barlow, and K. Kerlikowske Using Clinical Factors and Mammographic Breast Density to Estimate Breast Cancer Risk: Development and Validation of a New Predictive Model Ann Intern Med, March 4, 2008; 148(5): 337 - 347. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. Smith-Bindman, D. L. Miglioretti, R. Rosenberg, R. J. Reid, S. H. Taplin, B. M. Geller, K. Kerlikowske, and the National Institutes of Health Breast Cancer Su Physician Workload in Mammography Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2008; 190(2): 526 - 532. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. L. Miglioretti, R. Smith-Bindman, L. Abraham, R. J. Brenner, P. A. Carney, E. J. A. Bowles, D. S. M. Buist, and J. G. Elmore Radiologist Characteristics Associated With Interpretive Performance of Diagnostic Mammography J Natl Cancer Inst, December 19, 2007; 99(24): 1854 - 1863. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 E. S. Hwang, D. L. Miglioretti, R. Ballard-Barbash, D. L. Weaver, K. Kerlikowske, and for the National Cancer Institute Breast Cancer Su Association between Breast Density and Subsequent Breast Cancer Following Treatment for Ductal Carcinoma In situ Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., December 1, 2007; 16(12): 2587 - 2593. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. J. Schell, B. C. Yankaskas, R. Ballard-Barbash, B. F. Qaqish, W. E. Barlow, R. D. Rosenberg, and R. Smith-Bindman Evidence-based Target Recall Rates for Screening Mammography Radiology, June 1, 2007; 243(3): 681 - 689. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Y. Jiang, D. L. Miglioretti, C. E. Metz, and R. A. Schmidt Breast Cancer Detection Rate: Designing Imaging Trials to Demonstrate Improvements Radiology, May 1, 2007; 243(2): 360 - 367. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. P. Poplack, T. D. Tosteson, W. A. Wells, B. W. Pogue, P. M. Meaney, A. Hartov, C. A. Kogel, S. K. Soho, J. J. Gibson, and K. D. Paulsen Electromagnetic Breast Imaging: Results of a Pilot Study in Women with Abnormal Mammograms Radiology, May 1, 2007; 243(2): 350 - 359. [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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. M. Geller, L. E. Ichikawa, D. S. M. Buist, E. A. Sickles, P. A. Carney, B. C. Yankaskas, M. Dignan, K. Kerlikowske, K. R. Yabroff, W. Barlow, et al. Improving the Concordance of Mammography Assessment and Management Recommendations Radiology, October 1, 2006; 241(1): 67 - 75. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. E. Barlow, E. White, R. Ballard-Barbash, P. M. Vacek, L. Titus-Ernstoff, P. A. Carney, J. A. Tice, D. S. M. Buist, B. M. Geller, R. Rosenberg, et al. Prospective breast cancer risk prediction model for women undergoing screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst, September 6, 2006; 98(17): 1204 - 1214. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. Smith-Bindman, D. L. Miglioretti, N. Lurie, L. Abraham, R. B. Barbash, J. Strzelczyk, M. Dignan, W. E. Barlow, C. M. Beasley, and K. Kerlikowske Does utilization of screening mammography explain racial and ethnic differences in breast cancer? Ann Intern Med, April 18, 2006; 144(8): 541 - 553. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| RADIOLOGY | RADIOGRAPHICS | RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE |
