Literature DB >> 17517927

Evidence-based target recall rates for screening mammography.

Michael J Schell1, Bonnie C Yankaskas, Rachel Ballard-Barbash, Bahjat F Qaqish, William E Barlow, Robert D Rosenberg, Rebecca Smith-Bindman.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To retrospectively identify target recall rates for screening mammography on the basis of how sensitivity shifts with recall rate.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study group included 1 872 687 subsequent and 171 104 first screening mammograms from 1996 to 2001 from 172 and 139 facilities, respectively, in six sites of the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Institutional review board (IRB) approval was obtained from each site. Informed consent requirements of the IRBs were followed. The study was HIPAA compliant. Recall rate was defined as the percentage of screening studies for which further work-up was recommended by the radiologist. Sensitivity was defined as the proportion of cancers that were detected at screening mammography. Piecewise linear regression was used to model sensitivity as a function of recall rate. This model allows detection of critical recall rates in which significant changes (shifts) occurred in the rates that sensitivity increased with increasing recall rate. Rates were interpreted as number of additional work-ups per additional cancer detected (AW/ACD) or, in other words, the estimated number of additional women needed to be recalled at a given rate to detect one additional cancer.
RESULTS: For first mammograms, a single shift in the estimated AW/ACD rate occurred at a recall rate of 10.0%, with the rate jumping dramatically from 35 to 172. For subsequent mammograms, four shifts were identified. At a recall rate of 6.7%, the estimated AW/ACD increased from 80 to 132, which rendered it the highest desirable target recall rate. At a recall rate of 12.3%, the estimated AW/ACD was 304, which suggests little benefit for any higher recall rate.
CONCLUSION: Recall rates of 10.0% for first and 6.7% for subsequent mammograms are recommended targets on the basis of their AW/ACD rates (less than 100). (c) RSNA, 2007.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17517927     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2433060372

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


  25 in total

1.  Benefits of double reading of screening mammograms: retrospective study on a consecutive series.

Authors:  F Caumo; S Brunelli; M Zorzi; I Baglio; S Ciatto; S Montemezzi
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2011-03-07       Impact factor: 3.469

Review 2.  Nuclear imaging of the breast: translating achievements in instrumentation into clinical use.

Authors:  Carrie B Hruska; Michael K O'Connor
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Detection of breast cancer with addition of annual screening ultrasound or a single screening MRI to mammography in women with elevated breast cancer risk.

Authors:  Wendie A Berg; Zheng Zhang; Daniel Lehrer; Roberta A Jong; Etta D Pisano; Richard G Barr; Marcela Böhm-Vélez; Mary C Mahoney; W Phil Evans; Linda H Larsen; Marilyn J Morton; Ellen B Mendelson; Dione M Farria; Jean B Cormack; Helga S Marques; Amanda Adams; Nolin M Yeh; Glenna Gabrielli
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2012-04-04       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Applying a new quantitative image analysis scheme based on global mammographic features to assist diagnosis of breast cancer.

Authors:  Xuxin Chen; Abolfazl Zargari; Alan B Hollingsworth; Hong Liu; Bin Zheng; Yuchen Qiu
Journal:  Comput Methods Programs Biomed       Date:  2019-07-29       Impact factor: 5.428

5.  Recall Rate Reduction with Tomosynthesis During Baseline Screening Examinations: An Assessment From a Prospective Trial.

Authors:  Jules H Sumkin; Marie A Ganott; Denise M Chough; Victor J Catullo; Margarita L Zuley; Dilip D Shinde; Christiane M Hakim; Andriy I Bandos; David Gur
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2015-09-26       Impact factor: 3.173

6.  Ultrasound as the Primary Screening Test for Breast Cancer: Analysis From ACRIN 6666.

Authors:  Wendie A Berg; Andriy I Bandos; Ellen B Mendelson; Daniel Lehrer; Roberta A Jong; Etta D Pisano
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2015-12-28       Impact factor: 13.506

7.  Non-normal Screening Mammography Results, Lumpectomies, and Breast Cancer Reported by California Women, 2001-2009.

Authors:  Veronica L Irvin; Nancy Breen; Helen I Meissner; Benmei Liu; Robert M Kaplan
Journal:  Womens Health Issues       Date:  2015-06-09

8.  Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer.

Authors:  Wendie A Berg; Jeffrey D Blume; Jean B Cormack; Ellen B Mendelson; Daniel Lehrer; Marcela Böhm-Vélez; Etta D Pisano; Roberta A Jong; W Phil Evans; Marilyn J Morton; Mary C Mahoney; Linda Hovanessian Larsen; Richard G Barr; Dione M Farria; Helga S Marques; Karan Boparai
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2008-05-14       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Beyond the mammography quality standards act: measuring the quality of breast cancer screening programs.

Authors:  Garth H Rauscher; Anne Marie Murphy; Jennifer M Orsi; Danielle M Dupuy; Paula M Grabler; Christine B Weldon
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2013-11-21       Impact factor: 3.959

10.  Association between Screening Mammography Recall Rate and Interval Cancers in the UK Breast Cancer Service Screening Program: A Cohort Study.

Authors:  Elizabeth S Burnside; Daniel Vulkan; Roger G Blanks; Stephen W Duffy
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2018-04-03       Impact factor: 11.105

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.