Literature DB >> 19744825

Decreased accuracy in interpretation of community-based screening mammography for women with multiple clinical risk factors.

Andrea J Cook1, Joann G Elmore, Diana L Miglioretti, Edward A Sickles, Erin J Aiello Bowles, Gary R Cutter, Patricia A Carney.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of women's breast cancer risk factors (use of hormone therapy, family history of breast cancer, previous breast biopsy) on radiologists' mammographic interpretive performance and whether the influence of risk factors varies according to radiologist characteristics. STUDY DESIGN AND
SETTING: Screening mammograms (n=638,947) performed from 1996 to 2005 by 134 radiologists from three Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium registries was linked to cancer outcomes, radiologist surveys, and patient questionnaires. Interpretive performance measures were modeled using marginal and conditional logistic regression.
RESULTS: Having one or more clinical risk factors was associated with higher recall rates (1 vs. 0 risk factors: odds ratio [OR]=1.17, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.15-1.19; > or = 2 vs. 0: OR=1.43, 95% CI=1.40-1.47) and lower specificity (1 vs. 0: OR=0.86 [95% CI=0.84-0.88]; > or = 2 vs. 0: OR=0.70 [95% CI=0.68-0.72]) without a corresponding improvement in sensitivity and only a small increase in positive predictive value (1 vs. 0: OR=1.08 [95% CI=0.99-1.19]; > or = 2 vs. 0: OR=1.12 [95% CI=0.99-1.26]). There was no indication that influence of risk factors varied by radiologist characteristics.
CONCLUSION: Women with clinical risk factors who undergo screening mammography are more likely recalled for false-positive evaluation without an associated increase in cancer detection. Radiologists and patients with risk factors should be aware of this increased risk of adverse screening events. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19744825      PMCID: PMC2837135          DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol        ISSN: 0895-4356            Impact factor:   6.437


  22 in total

1.  Assessing mammographers' accuracy. A comparison of clinical and test performance.

Authors:  C M Rutter; S Taplin
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 6.437

2.  Marginal modeling of multilevel binary data with time-varying covariates.

Authors:  Diana L Miglioretti; Patrick J Heagerty
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 5.899

3.  Performance of screening mammography among women with and without a first-degree relative with breast cancer.

Authors:  K Kerlikowske; P A Carney; B Geller; M T Mandelson; S H Taplin; K Malvin; V Ernster; N Urban; G Cutter; R Rosenberg; R Ballard-Barbash
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2000-12-05       Impact factor: 25.391

Review 4.  Regression analysis for correlated data.

Authors:  K Y Liang; S L Zeger
Journal:  Annu Rev Public Health       Date:  1993       Impact factor: 21.981

5.  The impact of clinical history on mammographic interpretations.

Authors:  J G Elmore; C K Wells; D H Howard; A R Feinstein
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1997-01-01       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  Effect of age, breast density, and family history on the sensitivity of first screening mammography.

Authors:  K Kerlikowske; D Grady; J Barclay; E A Sickles; V Ernster
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1996-07-03       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  The influence of clinical information on the accuracy of diagnostic mammography.

Authors:  Nehmat Houssami; Les Irwig; Judy M Simpson; Merran McKessar; Steven Blome; Jennie Noakes
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 4.872

8.  The "laboratory" effect: comparing radiologists' performance and variability during prospective clinical and laboratory mammography interpretations.

Authors:  David Gur; Andriy I Bandos; Cathy S Cohen; Christiane M Hakim; Lara A Hardesty; Marie A Ganott; Ronald L Perrin; William R Poller; Ratan Shah; Jules H Sumkin; Luisa P Wallace; Howard E Rockette
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2008-08-05       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography.

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

10.  Family history of breast cancer, age and benign breast disease.

Authors:  Penelope M Webb; Celia Byrne; Stuart J Schnitt; James L Connolly; Timothy Jacobs; Gloria Peiro; Walter Willett; Graham A Colditz
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2002-07-20       Impact factor: 7.396

View more
  7 in total

1.  Cumulative probability of false-positive recall or biopsy recommendation after 10 years of screening mammography: a cohort study.

Authors:  Rebecca A Hubbard; Karla Kerlikowske; Chris I Flowers; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Weiwei Zhu; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2011-10-18       Impact factor: 25.391

2.  Factors Associated With Rates of False-Positive and False-Negative Results From Digital Mammography Screening: An Analysis of Registry Data.

Authors:  Heidi D Nelson; Ellen S O'Meara; Karla Kerlikowske; Steven Balch; Diana Miglioretti
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2016-01-12       Impact factor: 25.391

3.  The influence of mammographic technologists on radiologists' ability to interpret screening mammograms in community practice.

Authors:  Louise M Henderson; Thad Benefield; Mary W Marsh; Bruce F Schroeder; Danielle D Durham; Bonnie C Yankaskas; J Michael Bowling
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2014-11-27       Impact factor: 3.173

4.  Criteria for identifying radiologists with acceptable screening mammography interpretive performance on basis of multiple performance measures.

Authors:  Diana L Miglioretti; Laura Ichikawa; Robert A Smith; Lawrence W Bassett; Stephen A Feig; Barbara Monsees; Jay R Parikh; Robert D Rosenberg; Edward A Sickles; Patricia A Carney
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 3.959

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.  Patient and Radiologist Characteristics Associated With Accuracy of Two Types of Diagnostic Mammograms.

Authors:  Sara L Jackson; Linn Abraham; Diana L Miglioretti; Diana S M Buist; Karla Kerlikowske; Tracy Onega; Patricia A Carney; Edward A Sickles; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 3.959

7.  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

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.