OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to analyze the differences in clinical outcomes of diagnostic and screening mammography depending on whether comparison is made with previous examinations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed 48,281 consecutive mammography examinations for which previous mammography (9825 diagnostic, 38,456 screening) had been performed between 1997 and 2001, collecting data on demographics, whether comparison actually was made with previous examinations, abnormal findings (recall for screening mammography or biopsy recommendation for diagnostic mammography), biopsy yield of cancer, cancer detection rate, size of invasive cancers, axillary nodal status, and cancer stage. RESULTS: Comparison with previous examinations in the incidence screening setting decreases the recall rate from 4.9% to 3.8% (p < 0.0001) but does not significantly affect the biopsy yield (40-44%, p = 0.56) or the cancer detection rate (5.5-5.2/1000, p = 0.87). In the diagnostic setting, comparison with previous examinations increases the biopsy-recommended rate from 4.3% to 9.4% (p < 0.0001), the biopsy yield from 38% to 51% (p = 0.12), and the overall cancer detection rate from 11/1000 to 39/1000 (p < 0.0001). Comparison with previous examinations is not associated with a significant difference in mean tumor size. However, it is associated with a significant decrease in the frequency of axillary node metastasis and the cancer stage for screening mammography, but not for diagnostic mammography. CONCLUSION: For screening mammography, comparison with previous examinations significantly decreases false-positive but not true-positive findings and permits detection of cancers at an earlier stage. For diagnostic mammography, comparison with previous examinations increases true-positive findings.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to analyze the differences in clinical outcomes of diagnostic and screening mammography depending on whether comparison is made with previous examinations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed 48,281 consecutive mammography examinations for which previous mammography (9825 diagnostic, 38,456 screening) had been performed between 1997 and 2001, collecting data on demographics, whether comparison actually was made with previous examinations, abnormal findings (recall for screening mammography or biopsy recommendation for diagnostic mammography), biopsy yield of cancer, cancer detection rate, size of invasive cancers, axillary nodal status, and cancer stage. RESULTS: Comparison with previous examinations in the incidence screening setting decreases the recall rate from 4.9% to 3.8% (p < 0.0001) but does not significantly affect the biopsy yield (40-44%, p = 0.56) or the cancer detection rate (5.5-5.2/1000, p = 0.87). In the diagnostic setting, comparison with previous examinations increases the biopsy-recommended rate from 4.3% to 9.4% (p < 0.0001), the biopsy yield from 38% to 51% (p = 0.12), and the overall cancer detection rate from 11/1000 to 39/1000 (p < 0.0001). Comparison with previous examinations is not associated with a significant difference in mean tumor size. However, it is associated with a significant decrease in the frequency of axillary node metastasis and the cancer stage for screening mammography, but not for diagnostic mammography. CONCLUSION: For screening mammography, comparison with previous examinations significantly decreases false-positive but not true-positive findings and permits detection of cancers at an earlier stage. For diagnostic mammography, comparison with previous examinations increases true-positive findings.
Authors: Sebastien Haneuse; Diana S M Buist; Diana L Miglioretti; Melissa L Anderson; Patricia A Carney; Tracy Onega; Berta M Geller; Karla Kerlikowske; Robert D Rosenberg; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Joann G Elmore; Stephen H Taplin; Robert A Smith; Edward A Sickles Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-11-21 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Jun Ge; Lubomir M Hadjiiski; Berkman Sahiner; Jun Wei; Mark A Helvie; Chuan Zhou; Heang-Ping Chan Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2007-01-23 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Peter Filev; Lubomir Hadjiiski; Heang-Ping Chan; Berkman Sahiner; Jun Ge; Mark A Helvie; Marilyn Roubidoux; Chuan Zhou Journal: Med Phys Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Daniel Forsberg; Amit Gupta; Christopher Mills; Brett MacAdam; Beverly Rosipko; Barbara A Bangert; Michael D Coffey; Christos Kosmas; Jeffrey L Sunshine Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2016-11-26 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: Bonnie C Yankaskas; Ryan C May; Jeanine Matuszewski; J Michael Bowling; Molly P Jarman; Bruce F Schroeder Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-10-26 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Anne Marie McCarthy; Philip Yamartino; Jianing Yang; Mirar Bristol; Emily F Conant; Katrina Armstrong Journal: Med Care Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Diana L Miglioretti; Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Linn Abraham; R James Brenner; Patricia A Carney; Erin J Aiello Bowles; Diana S M Buist; Joann G Elmore Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2007-12-11 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Sara L Jackson; Stephen H Taplin; Edward A Sickles; Linn Abraham; William E Barlow; Patricia A Carney; Berta Geller; Eric A Berns; Gary R Cutter; Joann G Elmore Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2009-05-26 Impact factor: 13.506