Literature DB >> 15770039

Trends in recall, biopsy, and positive biopsy rates for screening mammography in an academic practice.

David Gur1, Luisa P Wallace, Amy H Klym, Lara A Hardesty, Gordon S Abrams, Ratan Shah, Jules H Sumkin.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To retrospectively evaluate whether recall, biopsy, and positive biopsy rates for a group of radiologists who met requirements of Mammography Quality Standards Act of 1992 (MQSA) demonstrated any change over time during a 27-month period (nine consecutive calendar quarters).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approved study protocol, and informed consent was waived. All screening mammograms that had been interpreted by MQSA-qualified radiologists between January 1, 2001, and March 31, 2003, were reviewed. Group recall rates, biopsy rates, and detected cancer rates for nine calendar quarters were computed and attributed to performance date of original screening mammogram. Type of biopsy performed was classified as follows: stereotactic vacuum-assisted biopsy, ultrasonography (US)-guided core biopsy, US-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy, surgical excision, and multiple biopsies. chi(2) Test for trend (two sided) and linear regression were used to assess trends over time for recall and biopsy rates, biopsy rates according to type of biopsy performed, and percentage of biopsy results positive for cancer.
RESULTS: Group recall rate did not show a statistically significant trend during period studied (P = .59). Biopsy rates increased significantly from 13.02 to 20.12 per 1000 screening examinations (P < .001). A corresponding substantial decrease was seen in percentage of biopsies in which malignancy was found, although this trend was not statistically significant (P = .24). A significant increase (from 4.72 to 9.88 per 1000 screening examinations) was found in rate of stereotactic vacuum-assisted 11-gauge core biopsies performed (P < .001).
CONCLUSION: Observed increase in biopsy rates reinforces the need to carefully select patients for biopsy to achieve efficient, efficacious, and cost-effective programs for early detection of breast cancers. (c) RSNA, 2005.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15770039     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2352040422

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  13 in total

1.  Analysis of shear strain imaging for classifying breast masses: finite element and phantom results.

Authors:  Haiyan Xu; Tomy Varghese; Ernest L Madsen
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  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

3.  Early-stage invasive breast cancers: potential role of optical tomography with US localization in assisting diagnosis.

Authors:  Quing Zhu; Poornima U Hegde; Andrew Ricci; Mark Kane; Edward B Cronin; Yasaman Ardeshirpour; Chen Xu; Andres Aguirre; Scott H Kurtzman; Peter J Deckers; Susan H Tannenbaum
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2010-06-22       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Breast cancer risk estimation with artificial neural networks revisited: discrimination and calibration.

Authors:  Turgay Ayer; Oguzhan Alagoz; Jagpreet Chhatwal; Jude W Shavlik; Charles E Kahn; Elizabeth S Burnside
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2010-07-15       Impact factor: 6.860

5.  Differential diagnosis of idiopathic granulomatous mastitis and breast cancer using acoustic radiation force impulse imaging.

Authors:  Memik Teke; Fatma Teke; Bircan Alan; Ahmet Türkoğlu; Cihad Hamidi; Cemil Göya; Salih Hattapoğlu; Metehan Gumus
Journal:  J Med Ultrason (2001)       Date:  2016-10-27       Impact factor: 1.314

Review 6.  Is the false-positive rate in mammography in North America too high?

Authors:  Michelle T Le; Carmel E Mothersill; Colin B Seymour; Fiona E McNeill
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2016-06-08       Impact factor: 3.039

7.  Multi-modality CADx: ROC study of the effect on radiologists' accuracy in characterizing breast masses on mammograms and 3D ultrasound images.

Authors:  Berkman Sahiner; Heang-Ping Chan; Lubomir M Hadjiiski; Marilyn A Roubidoux; Chintana Paramagul; Janet E Bailey; Alexis V Nees; Caroline E Blane; Dorit D Adler; Stephanie K Patterson; Katherine A Klein; Renee W Pinsky; Mark A Helvie
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2009-04-17       Impact factor: 3.173

8.  Probabilistic computer model developed from clinical data in national mammography database format to classify mammographic findings.

Authors:  Elizabeth S Burnside; Jesse Davis; Jagpreet Chhatwal; Oguzhan Alagoz; Mary J Lindstrom; Berta M Geller; Benjamin Littenberg; Katherine A Shaffer; Charles E Kahn; C David Page
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2009-04-14       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  Differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions by mechanical imaging.

Authors:  Vladimir Egorov; Thomas Kearney; Stanley B Pollak; Chand Rohatgi; Noune Sarvazyan; Suren Airapetian; Stephanie Browning; Armen Sarvazyan
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2009-03-21       Impact factor: 4.872

10.  Patient reported cosmetic outcome after vacuum assisted excision of benign breast lesions: a cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Elles M F van de Voort; Taco M A L Klem; Gerson M Struik; Erwin Birnie; Renata H J A Sinke; Ali Ghandi
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2020-07-20       Impact factor: 3.039

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.