Literature DB >> 12388494

Differential value of comparison with previous examinations in diagnostic versus screening mammography.

Elizabeth S Burnside1, Edward A Sickles, Rita E Sohlich, Katherine E Dee.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12388494     DOI: 10.2214/ajr.179.5.1791173

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  14 in total

1.  Mammographic interpretive volume and diagnostic mammogram interpretation performance in community practice.

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

2.  Computer-aided detection system for clustered microcalcifications: comparison of performance on full-field digital mammograms and digitized screen-film mammograms.

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

3.  Should previous mammograms be digitised in the transition to digital mammography?

Authors:  S Taylor-Phillips; M G Wallis; A G Gale
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2009-03-18       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Automated regional registration and characterization of corresponding microcalcification clusters on temporal pairs of mammograms for interval change analysis.

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

5.  Synchronized navigation of current and prior studies using image registration improves radiologist's efficiency.

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

6.  Effect of observing change from comparison mammograms on performance of screening mammography in a large community-based population.

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

7.  Classifying symmetrical differences and temporal change for the detection of malignant masses in mammography using deep neural networks.

Authors:  Thijs Kooi; Nico Karssemeijer
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2017-10-10

8.  Racial differences in false-positive mammogram rates: results from the ACRIN Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST).

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

9.  Radiologist characteristics associated with interpretive performance of diagnostic mammography.

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

10.  Variability of interpretive accuracy among diagnostic mammography facilities.

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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.