OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to examine the accuracy of short-interval follow-up mammograms and evaluate patient and radiologist characteristics associated with accuracy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated 45,007 initial short-interval follow-up mammograms from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium interpreted 3-9 months after a probably benign assessment on a screening or diagnostic examination between 1994 and 2004. We linked these mammograms with patient characteristics and breast cancer diagnoses within 12 months. A subset of short-interval follow-up examinations (n = 13,907) was merged with radiologist characteristics collected from survey data from 130 interpreting radiologists. Using logistic regression, we fit generalized estimating equations to model sensitivity and specificity of short-interval follow-up mammograms by patient and radiologist characteristics. RESULTS: For every 1,000 women, 8.0 women (0.8%) were diagnosed with breast cancer within 6 months and 11.3 (1.1%) within 12 months. Sensitivity was 83.3% (95% CI, 79.4-87.3%) for cancers diagnosed within 6 months and 60.5% (56.2-64.7%) for those diagnosed within 12 months. Specificity was 97.2% (96.9-97.6%) at 6 months and 97.3% (96.9-97.6%) at 12 months. Sensitivity at 12 months increased among women with unilateral short-interval follow-up mammograms (odds ratio, 1.56 [95% CI, 1.06-2.29]) and when the interpreting radiologist spent more than 10 hours a week in breast imaging (odds ratio, 3.25 [1.00-10.52]). CONCLUSION: Initial short-interval follow-up mammography examinations had a lower sensitivity for detecting breast cancer within 12 months than other diagnostic mammograms (61% for short-interval follow-up vs 80% for diagnostic mammograms reported in the literature). However, sensitivity within the 6-month interval that is usually recommended for subsequent follow-up was 83%. Accuracy of short-interval follow-up mammograms was influenced by few patient and radiologist characteristics.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to examine the accuracy of short-interval follow-up mammograms and evaluate patient and radiologist characteristics associated with accuracy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated 45,007 initial short-interval follow-up mammograms from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium interpreted 3-9 months after a probably benign assessment on a screening or diagnostic examination between 1994 and 2004. We linked these mammograms with patient characteristics and breast cancer diagnoses within 12 months. A subset of short-interval follow-up examinations (n = 13,907) was merged with radiologist characteristics collected from survey data from 130 interpreting radiologists. Using logistic regression, we fit generalized estimating equations to model sensitivity and specificity of short-interval follow-up mammograms by patient and radiologist characteristics. RESULTS: For every 1,000 women, 8.0 women (0.8%) were diagnosed with breast cancer within 6 months and 11.3 (1.1%) within 12 months. Sensitivity was 83.3% (95% CI, 79.4-87.3%) for cancers diagnosed within 6 months and 60.5% (56.2-64.7%) for those diagnosed within 12 months. Specificity was 97.2% (96.9-97.6%) at 6 months and 97.3% (96.9-97.6%) at 12 months. Sensitivity at 12 months increased among women with unilateral short-interval follow-up mammograms (odds ratio, 1.56 [95% CI, 1.06-2.29]) and when the interpreting radiologist spent more than 10 hours a week in breast imaging (odds ratio, 3.25 [1.00-10.52]). CONCLUSION: Initial short-interval follow-up mammography examinations had a lower sensitivity for detecting breast cancer within 12 months than other diagnostic mammograms (61% for short-interval follow-up vs 80% for diagnostic mammograms reported in the literature). However, sensitivity within the 6-month interval that is usually recommended for subsequent follow-up was 83%. Accuracy of short-interval follow-up mammograms was influenced by few patient and radiologist characteristics.
Authors: R Ballard-Barbash; S H Taplin; B C Yankaskas; V L Ernster; R D Rosenberg; P A Carney; W E Barlow; B M Geller; K Kerlikowske; B K Edwards; C F Lynch; N Urban; C A Chrvala; C R Key; S P Poplack; J K Worden; L G Kessler Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 1997-10 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: William E Barlow; Constance D Lehman; Yingye Zheng; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Gary R Cutter; Patricia A Carney; Berta M Geller; Robert Rosenberg; Karla Kerlikowske; Donald L Weaver; Stephen H Taplin Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2002-08-07 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Shagufta Yasmeen; Patrick S Romano; Mary Pettinger; Rowan T Chlebowski; John A Robbins; Dorothy S Lane; Susan L Hendrix Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2003-03-19 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Patricia A Carney; Diana L Miglioretti; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Karla Kerlikowske; Robert Rosenberg; Carolyn M Rutter; Berta M Geller; Linn A Abraham; Steven H Taplin; Mark Dignan; Gary Cutter; Rachel Ballard-Barbash Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2003-02-04 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Ximena Varas; José H Leborgne; Francisco Leborgne; Julieta Mezzera; Sylvia Jaumandreu; Felix Leborgne Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Joann G Elmore; Andrea J Cook; Andy Bogart; Patricia A Carney; Berta M Geller; Stephen H Taplin; Diana S M Buist; Tracy Onega; Christoph I Lee; Diana L Miglioretti Journal: Clin Imaging Date: 2016-07-01 Impact factor: 1.605
Authors: Patricia A Carney; Andrea J Cook; Diana L Miglioretti; Stephen A Feig; Erin Aiello Bowles; Berta M Geller; Karla Kerlikowske; Mark Kettler; Tracy Onega; Joann G Elmore Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2011-10-15 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Brian L Sprague; Robert F Arao; Diana L Miglioretti; Louise M Henderson; Diana S M Buist; Tracy Onega; Garth H Rauscher; Janie M Lee; Anna N A Tosteson; Karla Kerlikowske; Constance D Lehman Journal: Radiology Date: 2017-02-28 Impact factor: 11.105
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