Literature DB >> 16450388

Performance of clinical mammography: a nationwide study from Denmark.

Allan Jensen1, Ilse Vejborg, Niels Severinsen, Susanne Nielsen, Fritz Rank, Gerd Just Mikkelsen, Jørgen Hilden, Dorte Vistisen, Uffe Dyreborg, Elsebeth Lynge.   

Abstract

Clinical mammography is the key tool for breast cancer diagnosis, but little is known about the impact of the organisational set-up on the performance. We evaluated whether organisational factors influence the performance of clinical mammography. Clinical mammography data from all clinics in Denmark in the year 2000 were collected and linked to cancer outcome. Use of the National Institute of Radiation Hygiene register for identification of radiology clinics ensured comprehensive nationwide registration. We used the final mammographic assessment at the end of the imaging work-up to determine sensitivity, specificity and accuracy, the latter using a receiver-operating characteristics (ROC) analysis. In 96,534 clinical mammography examinations, sensitivity was 75% and specificity 99%. The presence of at least one high volume-reading radiologist in the clinic increased accuracy (AUC = 0.91 for <1,000 examinations/year and 0.92 for >2,000 examinations/year, p = 0.017). The examination volume per clinic showed no clear effect on performance, as accuracy was significantly higher in clinics with a medium number of examinations (AUC = 0.93 for 2,000-4,000 examinations/year and 0.90 for >6,000 examinations/year, p = 0.003). Accuracy was significantly lower in regions with high annual utilisation rate of clinical mammography, which means the proportion of examined women in a region (AUC = 0.90 for 3.0-5.0% annual utilisation rate and AUC = 0.93 for 2.0-2.5% annual utilisation rate, and p = 0.001), indicating that clinical mammography worked best in patient populations of purely symptomatic women. Our data indicate that to increase the accuracy of clinical mammography at the community level, the presence of an experienced radiologist should be prioritized ahead of raising the clinic size.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16450388     DOI: 10.1002/ijc.21811

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Cancer        ISSN: 0020-7136            Impact factor:   7.396


  10 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.  Investigating the link between radiologists' gaze, diagnostic decision, and image content.

Authors:  Georgia Tourassi; Sophie Voisin; Vincent Paquit; Elizabeth Krupinski
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2013-06-20       Impact factor: 4.497

3.  The potential use of ultra-low radiation dose images in digital mammography--a clinical proof-of-concept study in craniocaudal views.

Authors:  A M J Bluekens; W J H Veldkamp; K H Schuur; N Karssemeijer; M J M Broeders; G J den Heeten
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2015-01-09       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 4.  Dedicated breast computed tomography: the optimal cross-sectional imaging solution?

Authors:  Karen K Lindfors; John M Boone; Mary S Newell; Carl J D'Orsi
Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 2.303

5.  Accuracy of diagnostic mammography at facilities serving vulnerable women.

Authors:  L Elizabeth Goldman; Rod Walker; Diana L Miglioretti; Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Karla Kerlikowske
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 2.983

6.  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

7.  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

8.  Performance of diagnostic mammography differs in the United States and Denmark.

Authors:  Allan Jensen; Berta M Geller; Charlotte C Gard; Diana L Miglioretti; Bonnie Yankaskas; Patricia A Carney; Robert D Rosenberg; Ilse Vejborg; Elsebeth Lynge
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2010-10-15       Impact factor: 7.396

9.  Beyond mammography screening: quality assurance in breast cancer diagnosis (The QuaMaDi Project).

Authors:  A Katalinic; C Bartel; H Raspe; I Schreer
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2006-12-19       Impact factor: 7.640

10.  Relative Efficiency of Radiation Treatment Centers: An Application of Data Envelopment Analysis.

Authors:  Tiffany Bayley; Mehmet A Begen; Felipe F Rodrigues; David Barrett
Journal:  Healthcare (Basel)       Date:  2022-06-02
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.