Literature DB >> 17242246

Factors associated with imaging and procedural events used to detect breast cancer after screening mammography.

Patricia A Carney1, Linn A Abraham, Diana L Miglioretti, K Robin Yabroff, Edward A Sickles, Diana S M Buist, Claudia J Kasales, Berta M Geller, Robert D Rosenberg, Mark B Dignan, Donald L Weaver, Karla Kerlikowske.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to characterize the type and frequency of diagnostic evaluations after screening mammography and to summarize their association with the likelihood of biopsy and subsequent breast cancer diagnosis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The data source was 584,470 women with no previous breast cancer from six states in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. In this observational study, we linked data from 1,207,631 routine screening mammograms performed between January 1, 1996, and December 31, 2002, to data on additional imaging, interventional procedures, and biopsy outcome (benign or malignant). Additional examinations were categorized into diagnostic mammography, sonography, or both. Events were further subdivided by whether they were performed on the same day as the screening examination and whether patients reported breast symptoms. Logistic regression analysis was used to examine the association between additional evaluation performed and the likelihood of biopsy and the likelihood of subsequent breast cancer diagnosis after adjustment for patient and screening mammographic characteristics.
RESULTS: Most (92%) of the screening examinations did not include additional imaging. The probability of biopsy ranged from 0.4% for examinations with no follow-up to 20.1% for those with diagnostic mammography and sonography on the same day as screening among women without symptoms and from 2.1% for those with no follow-up to 18.9% for those with diagnostic mammography and sonography on a day different from screening among women with symptoms. Thirty percent of women without symptoms who underwent biopsy had cancer, whereas 27.1% of women with symptoms who underwent biopsy had cancer. Women who underwent biopsy after screening mammography with diagnostic mammography and sonography on the same day had the highest probability of breast cancer (37.6% among women without symptoms, 36.4% among women with symptoms), whereas those who underwent only sonography performed at a later date had the lowest probability of breast cancer (11.9% among women without symptoms, 17.1% among women with symptoms).
CONCLUSION: Women who undergo screening mammography followed by diagnostic mammography and sonography have a high probability of undergoing biopsy and having the biopsy result of breast cancer when follow-up imaging is performed on the same day as screening mammography whether or not breast symptoms are present. Biopsy performed after sonography in the absence of diagnostic mammography had a low yield of breast cancer.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17242246     DOI: 10.2214/AJR.05.1718

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  6 in total

1.  Using semi-Markov processes to study timeliness and tests used in the diagnostic evaluation of suspected breast cancer.

Authors:  R A Hubbard; J Lange; Y Zhang; B A Salim; J R Stroud; L Y T Inoue
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2016-07-21       Impact factor: 2.373

2.  Advanced Breast Imaging Availability by Screening Facility Characteristics.

Authors:  Christoph I Lee; Andy Bogart; Rebecca A Hubbard; Eniola T Obadina; Deirdre A Hill; Jennifer S Haas; Anna N A Tosteson; Jennifer A Alford-Teaster; Brian L Sprague; Wendy B DeMartini; Constance D Lehman; Tracy L Onega
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2015-04-04       Impact factor: 3.173

3.  Discrimination of benign and malignant breast lesions by using shutter-speed dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging.

Authors:  Wei Huang; Luminita A Tudorica; Xin Li; Sunitha B Thakur; Yiyi Chen; Elizabeth A Morris; Ian J Tagge; Maayan E Korenblit; William D Rooney; Jason A Koutcher; Charles S Springer
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2011-08-09       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  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

5.  An assessment of the likelihood, frequency, and content of verbal communication between radiologists and women receiving screening and diagnostic mammography.

Authors:  Patricia A Carney; Mark Kettler; Andrea J Cook; Berta M Geller; Leah Karliner; Diana L Miglioretti; Erin Aiello Bowles; Diana S Buist; Thomas H Gallagher; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2009-05-12       Impact factor: 3.173

6.  Diagnostic imaging and biopsy pathways following abnormal screen-film and digital screening mammography.

Authors:  Rebecca A Hubbard; Weiwei Zhu; Ruslan Horblyuk; Leah Karliner; Brian L Sprague; Louise Henderson; David Lee; Tracy Onega; Diana S M Buist; Alison Sweet
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2013-03-08       Impact factor: 4.872

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.