Literature DB >> 16990672

Improving the concordance of mammography assessment and management recommendations.

Berta M Geller1, Laura E Ichikawa, Diana S M Buist, Edward A Sickles, Patricia A Carney, Bonnie C Yankaskas, Mark Dignan, Karla Kerlikowske, K Robin Yabroff, William Barlow, Robert D Rosenberg.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To retrospectively compare the concordance of initial and final assessment categories for mammograms with management recommendations made before and after the final rules of the Mammography Quality Standards Act (MQSA) were in effect for screening and diagnostic mammography.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included mammograms from 1996 to 2001 from the seven mammography registries of the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC). The authors defined the pre-MQSA period as January 1, 1996-April 27, 1999, and the post-MQSA period as April 28, 1999-December 31, 2001 (2470151 screening and 194199 diagnostic mammograms). Assessment was cross-classified according to management recommendation. Changes in concordance between assessment and recommendation were evaluated by year and by period (before and after MQSA) for computer-linked data and for all data by using Pearson chi(2) test to evaluate differences. Mantel-Haenszel chi(2) test was used to measure change in concordance over time. Each registry and the BCSC Statistical Coordinating Center had a Federal Certificate of Confidentiality and approval from each institution's review board for protection of human subjects to collect and send data to coordinating center and conduct research with these data. Active consent was required at only one site in this HIPAA-compliant study.
RESULTS: Concordance increased significantly in the post-MQSA period for Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System categories 3-5 assessments at both screening and diagnostic mammography. The most substantial improvements were in the use of the management recommendation for "additional imaging," which decreased from 41% in 1996 to 15% in 2001 for screening mammograms with an initial assessment of category 4 (P < .001). Recommendation for short-interval follow-up in women with screening mammograms with a category 3 final assessment increased from 51% in 1996 to 76% in 2001 (P < .001). Concordance for diagnostic mammograms assigned category 0 improved from 65% in the pre-MQSA period to 81% in the post-MQSA period (P < .001).
CONCLUSION: This analysis demonstrates that over a relatively short period of time, major improvement in radiology reporting has occurred. (c) RSNA, 2006.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16990672     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2411051375

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


  11 in total

1.  Positive predictive value of mammography: comparison of interpretations of screening and diagnostic images by the same radiologist and by different radiologists.

Authors:  Jacqueline R Halladay; Bonnie C Yankaskas; J Michael Bowling; Camille Alexander
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 3.959

2.  Contrast-enhanced ultrasound improved performance of breast imaging reporting and data system evaluation of critical breast lesions.

Authors:  Jun Luo; Ji-Dong Chen; Qing Chen; Lin-Xian Yue; Guo Zhou; Cheng Lan; Yi Li; Chi-Hua Wu; Jing-Qiao Lu
Journal:  World J Radiol       Date:  2016-06-28

3.  Breast Cancer Characteristics Associated With Digital Versus Film-Screen Mammography for Screen-Detected and Interval Cancers.

Authors:  Louise M Henderson; Diana L Miglioretti; Karla Kerlikowske; Karen J Wernli; Brian L Sprague; Constance D Lehman
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 3.959

4.  Timeliness of follow-up after abnormal screening mammogram: variability of facilities.

Authors:  Robert D Rosenberg; Sebastien J P A Haneuse; Berta M Geller; Diana S M Buist; Diana L Miglioretti; R James Brenner; Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Stephen H Taplin
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2011-09-07       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Effect of previous benign breast biopsy on the interpretive performance of subsequent screening mammography.

Authors:  Stephen H Taplin; L Abraham; B M Geller; B C Yankaskas; D S M Buist; R Smith-Bindman; C Lehman; D Weaver; P A Carney; W E Barlow
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2010-07-02       Impact factor: 13.506

6.  Recommendation for short-interval follow-up examinations after a probably benign assessment: is clinical practice consistent with BI-RADS guidance?

Authors:  Erin J Aiello Bowles; Edward A Sickles; Diana L Miglioretti; Patricia A Carney; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 3.959

7.  Timeliness of breast cancer diagnosis and initiation of treatment in the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program, 1996-2005.

Authors:  Lisa C Richardson; Janet Royalty; William Howe; William Helsel; William Kammerer; Vicki B Benard
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2009-12-17       Impact factor: 9.308

8.  Mammographic features and histopathological findings of interval breast cancers.

Authors:  S Hofvind; B Geller; P Skaane
Journal:  Acta Radiol       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 1.990

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.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.