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.
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.
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
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
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
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: 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
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
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
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
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
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
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