Literature DB >> 15073844

Recall and detection rates in screening mammography.

David Gur1, Jules H Sumkin, Lara A Hardesty, Ronald J Clearfield, Cathy S Cohen, Marie A Ganott, Christiane M Hakim, Kathleen M Harris, William R Poller, Ratan Shah, Luisa P Wallace, Howard E Rockette.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The authors investigated the correlation between recall and detection rates in a group of 10 radiologists who had read a high volume of screening mammograms in an academic institution.
METHODS: Practice-related and outcome-related databases of verified cases were used to compute recall rates and tumor detection rates for a group of 10 Mammography Quality Standard Act (MQSA)-certified radiologists who interpreted a total of 98,668 screening mammograms during the years 2000, 2001, and 2002. The relation between recall and detection rates for these individuals was investigated using parametric Pearson (r) and nonparametric Spearman (rho) correlation coefficients. The effect of the volume of mammograms interpreted by individual radiologists was assessed using partial correlations controlling for total reading volumes.
RESULTS: A wide variability of recall rates (range, 7.7-17.2%) and detection rates (range, 2.6-5.4 per 1000 mammograms) was observed in the current study. A statistically significant correlation (P < 0.05) between recall and detection rates was observed in this group of 10 experienced radiologists. The results remained significant (P < 0.05) after accounting for the volume of mammograms interpreted by each radiologist.
CONCLUSIONS: Optimal performance in screening mammography should be evaluated quantitatively. The general pressure to reduce recall rates through "practice guidelines" to below a fixed level for all radiologists should be assessed carefully. Copyright 2004 American Cancer Society.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15073844     DOI: 10.1002/cncr.20053

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer        ISSN: 0008-543X            Impact factor:   6.860


  11 in total

1.  Evaluating imaging and computer-aided detection and diagnosis devices at the FDA.

Authors:  Brandon D Gallas; Heang-Ping Chan; Carl J D'Orsi; Lori E Dodd; Maryellen L Giger; David Gur; Elizabeth A Krupinski; Charles E Metz; Kyle J Myers; Nancy A Obuchowski; Berkman Sahiner; Alicia Y Toledano; Margarita L Zuley
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2012-02-03       Impact factor: 3.173

2.  Listening to Women: Expectations and Experiences in Breast Imaging.

Authors:  Susan Harvey; Aimee M Gallagher; Martha Nolan; Christine M Hughes
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 2.681

3.  Variations in screening outcome among pairs of screening radiologists at non-blinded double reading of screening mammograms: a population-based study.

Authors:  E G Klompenhouwer; L E M Duijm; A C Voogd; G J den Heeten; J Nederend; F H Jansen; M J M Broeders
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2014-02-06       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Characteristics of screen-detected cancers following concordant or discordant recalls at blinded double reading in biennial digital screening mammography.

Authors:  Angela M P Coolen; Joost R C Lameijer; Adri C Voogd; Marieke W J Louwman; Luc J Strobbe; Vivianne C G Tjan-Heijnen; Lucien E M Duijm
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-06-25       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  Feasibility and satisfaction with a tailored web-based audit intervention for recalibrating radiologists' thresholds for conducting additional work-up.

Authors:  Patricia A Carney; Berta M Geller; Edward A Sickles; Diana L Miglioretti; Erin J Aiello Bowles; Linn Abraham; Stephen A Feig; David Brown; Andrea J Cook; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2010-12-30       Impact factor: 3.173

6.  Personalized Screening for Breast Cancer: Rationale, Present Practices, and Future Directions.

Authors:  Tanir M Allweis; Naama Hermann; Rinat Berenstein-Molho; Michal Guindy
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2021-01-04       Impact factor: 5.344

7.  An equivalent relative utility metric for evaluating screening mammography.

Authors:  Craig K Abbey; Miguel P Eckstein; John M Boone
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2009-08-25       Impact factor: 2.583

8.  Association between Screening Mammography Recall Rate and Interval Cancers in the UK Breast Cancer Service Screening Program: A Cohort Study.

Authors:  Elizabeth S Burnside; Daniel Vulkan; Roger G Blanks; Stephen W Duffy
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2018-04-03       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  Cost-effectiveness analysis of mammography and clinical breast examination strategies: a comparison with current guidelines.

Authors:  Charlotte Hsieh Ahern; Yu Shen
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2009-03-03       Impact factor: 4.254

10.  Inter-observer variability in mammography screening and effect of type and number of readers on screening outcome.

Authors:  L E M Duijm; M W J Louwman; J H Groenewoud; L V van de Poll-Franse; J Fracheboud; J W Coebergh
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2009-03-03       Impact factor: 7.640

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.