Literature DB >> 15624239

International comparison of performance measures for screening mammography: can it be done?

B C Yankaskas1, C N Klabunde, R Ancelle-Park, G Renner, H Wang, J Fracheboud, G Pou, J-L Bulliard.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Published screening mammography performance measures vary across countries. An inter-national study was undertaken to assess the comparability of two performance measures: the recall rate and positive predictive value (PPV). These measures were selected because they do not require identification of all cancers in the screening population, which is not always possible.
SETTING: The screening mammography programs or data registries in 25 member countries of the International Breast Cancer Screening Network (IBSN).
METHODS: In 1999 an assessment form was distributed to IBSN country representatives in order to obtain information on how screening mammography was performed and what specific data related to recall rates and PPV were collected. Participating countries were then asked to provide data to allow calculation of recall rates, PPV and cancer detection rates for screening mammography by age group for women screened in the period 1997-1999.
RESULTS: Twenty-two countries completed the assessment form and 14 countries provided performance data. Differences in screening mammography delivery and data collection were evident. For most countries, recall rates were higher for initial than for subsequent mammograms. There was no consistent relationship of initial to subsequent PPV, although PPV generally decreased as the recall rate increased. Recall rates decreased with increasing age, while PPV increased as age increased.
CONCLUSION: Similar patterns for mammography performance measures were evident across countries.However, the development of a more standardized approach to defining and collecting data would allow more valid international comparisons, with the potential to optimize mammography performance. At present, international comparisons of performance should be made with caution due to differences in defining and collecting mammography data.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15624239     DOI: 10.1258/0969141042467430

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Screen        ISSN: 0969-1413            Impact factor:   2.136


  24 in total

1.  Time trends in radiologists' interpretive performance at screening mammography from the community-based Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, 1996-2004.

Authors:  Laura E Ichikawa; William E Barlow; Melissa L Anderson; Stephen H Taplin; Berta M Geller; R James Brenner
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2010-05-26       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Experiences with a self-test for Dutch breast screening radiologists: lessons learnt.

Authors:  J M H Timmers; A L M Verbeek; R M Pijnappel; M J M Broeders; G J den Heeten
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2013-09-22       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  False positive mammograms in Europe: do they affect reattendance?

Authors:  Talya Salz; Jessica T DeFrank; Noel T Brewer
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2010-11-04       Impact factor: 4.872

4.  An investigation into the mammographic appearances of missed breast cancers when recall rates are reduced.

Authors:  Norhashimah Mohd Norsuddin; Claudia Mello-Thoms; Warren Reed; Mary Rickard; Sarah Lewis
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2017-06-16       Impact factor: 3.039

5.  Modelling the cumulative risk of a false-positive screening test.

Authors:  Rebecca A Hubbard; Diana L Miglioretti; Robert A Smith
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2010-03-31       Impact factor: 3.021

6.  Comparing sensitivity and specificity of screening mammography in the United States and Denmark.

Authors:  Katja Kemp Jacobsen; Ellen S O'Meara; Dustin Key; Diana S M Buist; Karla Kerlikowske; Ilse Vejborg; Brian L Sprague; Elsebeth Lynge; My von Euler-Chelpin
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2015-06-01       Impact factor: 7.396

7.  Inter- and intraradiologist variability in the BI-RADS assessment and breast density categories for screening mammograms.

Authors:  A Redondo; M Comas; F Macià; F Ferrer; C Murta-Nascimento; M T Maristany; E Molins; M Sala; X Castells
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2012-09-19       Impact factor: 3.039

8.  Comparing screening mammography for early breast cancer detection in Vermont and Norway.

Authors:  Solveig Hofvind; Pamela M Vacek; Joan Skelly; Donald L Weaver; Berta M Geller
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2008-07-29       Impact factor: 13.506

9.  Cumulative false positive recall rate and association with participant related factors in a population based breast cancer screening programme.

Authors:  Xavier Castells; Eduard Molins; Francesc Macià
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 3.710

10.  Using the European guidelines to evaluate the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program.

Authors:  Solveig Hofvind; Berta Geller; Pamela M Vacek; Steinar Thoresen; Per Skaane
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2007-06-27       Impact factor: 8.082

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.