Literature DB >> 20505059

Time trends in radiologists' interpretive performance at screening mammography from the community-based Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, 1996-2004.

Laura E Ichikawa1, William E Barlow, Melissa L Anderson, Stephen H Taplin, Berta M Geller, R James Brenner.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To examine time trends in radiologists' interpretive performance at screening mammography between 1996 and 2004.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: All study procedures were institutional review board approved and HIPAA compliant. Data were collected on subsequent screening mammograms obtained from 1996 to 2004 in women aged 40-79 years who were followed up for 1 year for breast cancer. Recall rate, sensitivity, and specificity were examined annually. Generalized estimating equation (GEE) and random-effects models were used to test for linear trend. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), tumor histologic findings, and size of the largest dimension or diameter of the tumor were also examined.
RESULTS: Data on 2,542,049 subsequent screening mammograms and 12,498 cancers diagnosed in the follow-up period were included in this study. Recall rate increased from 6.7% to 8.6%, sensitivity increased from 71.4% to 83.8%, and specificity decreased from 93.6% to 91.7%. In GEE models, adjusted odds ratios per calendar year were 1.04 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02, 1.05) for recall rate, 1.09 (95% CI: 1.07. 1.12) for sensitivity, and 0.96 (95% CI: 0.95, 0.98) for specificity (P < .001 for all). Random-effects model results were similar. The AUC increased over time: 0.869 (95% CI: 0.861, 0.877) for 1996-1998, 0.884 (95% CI: 0.879, 0.890) for 1999-2001, and 0.891 (95% CI: 0.885, 0.896) for 2002-2004 (P < .001). Tumor histologic findings and size remained constant.
CONCLUSION: Recall rate and sensitivity for screening mammograms increased, whereas specificity decreased from 1996 to 2004 among women with a prior mammogram. This trend remained after accounting for risk factors. The net effect was an improvement in overall discrimination, a measure of the probability that a mammogram with cancer in the follow-up period has a higher Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System assessment category than does a mammogram without cancer in the follow-up period.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20505059      PMCID: PMC2897687          DOI: 10.1148/radiol.10091881

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


  22 in total

1.  Optimizing techniques in screen-film mammography.

Authors:  R E Hendrick; E A Berns
Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 2.303

2.  Detection of ductal carcinoma in situ in women undergoing screening mammography.

Authors:  Virginia L Ernster; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; William E Barlow; Yingye Zheng; Donald L Weaver; Gary Cutter; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Robert Rosenberg; Patricia A Carney; Karla Kerlikowske; Stephen H Taplin; Nicole Urban; Berta M Geller
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2002-10-16       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  Marginal modeling of nonnested multilevel data using standard software.

Authors:  Diana L Miglioretti; Patrick J Heagerty
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2006-11-22       Impact factor: 4.897

4.  Performance benchmarks for screening mammography.

Authors:  Robert D Rosenberg; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Linn A Abraham; Edward A Sickles; Constance D Lehman; Berta M Geller; Patricia A Carney; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana S M Buist; Donald L Weaver; William E Barlow; Rachel Ballard-Barbash
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Time trends of process and impact indicators in Italian mammography screening programmes--1996-2004.

Authors:  Livia Giordano; Daniela Giorgi; Paola Piccini; Leonardo Ventura; Valeria Stefanini; Carlo Senore; Eugenio Paci; Nereo Segnan
Journal:  Epidemiol Prev       Date:  2007 Mar-Jun       Impact factor: 1.901

6.  Concordance of breast imaging reporting and data system assessments and management recommendations in screening mammography.

Authors:  Stephen H Taplin; Laura E Ichikawa; Karla Kerlikowske; Virginia L Ernster; Robert D Rosenberg; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Patricia A Carney; Berta M Geller; Nicole Urban; Mark B Dignan; William E Barlow; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Edward A Sickles
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Recommendations for additional imaging in radiology reports: multifactorial analysis of 5.9 million examinations.

Authors:  Christopher L Sistrom; Keith J Dreyer; Pragya P Dang; Jeffrey B Weilburg; Giles W Boland; Daniel I Rosenthal; James H Thrall
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2009-08-25       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  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

9.  Declines in invasive breast cancer and use of postmenopausal hormone therapy in a screening mammography population.

Authors:  Karla Kerlikowske; Diana L Miglioretti; Diana S M Buist; Rod Walker; Patricia A Carney
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2007-08-14       Impact factor: 13.506

10.  Mammography facility characteristics associated with interpretive accuracy of screening mammography.

Authors:  Stephen Taplin; Linn Abraham; William E Barlow; Joshua J Fenton; Eric A Berns; Patricia A Carney; Gary R Cutter; Edward A Sickles; D'Orsi Carl; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2008-06-10       Impact factor: 13.506

View more
  12 in total

1.  Comparative effectiveness of digital versus film-screen mammography in community practice in the United States: a cohort study.

Authors:  Karla Kerlikowske; Rebecca A Hubbard; Diana L Miglioretti; Berta M Geller; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Constance D Lehman; Stephen H Taplin; Edward A Sickles
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2011-10-18       Impact factor: 25.391

2.  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

3.  Effect of radiologists' diagnostic work-up volume on interpretive performance.

Authors:  Diana S M Buist; Melissa L Anderson; Robert A Smith; Patricia A Carney; Diana L Miglioretti; Barbara S Monsees; Edward A Sickles; Stephen H Taplin; Berta M Geller; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Tracy L Onega
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2014-06-24       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Influence of annual interpretive volume on screening mammography performance in the United States.

Authors:  Diana S M Buist; Melissa L Anderson; Sebastien J P A Haneuse; Edward A Sickles; Robert A Smith; Patricia A Carney; Stephen H Taplin; Robert D Rosenberg; Berta M Geller; Tracy L Onega; Barbara S Monsees; Lawrence W Bassett; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Joann G Elmore; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2011-02-22       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  A Utility/Cost Analysis of Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Algorithms.

Authors:  Craig K Abbey; Yirong Wu; Elizabeth S Burnside; Adam Wunderlich; Frank W Samuelson; John M Boone
Journal:  Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng       Date:  2016-03-24

6.  Impact of computer-aided detection systems on radiologist accuracy with digital mammography.

Authors:  Elodia B Cole; Zheng Zhang; Helga S Marques; R Edward Hendrick; Martin J Yaffe; Etta D Pisano
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 3.959

7.  Personalized estimates of radiation dose from dedicated breast CT in a diagnostic population and comparison with diagnostic mammography.

Authors:  Srinivasan Vedantham; Linxi Shi; Andrew Karellas; Avice M O'Connell; David L Conover
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2013-10-29       Impact factor: 3.609

8.  Breast Tumor Prognostic Characteristics and Biennial vs Annual Mammography, Age, and Menopausal Status.

Authors:  Diana L Miglioretti; Weiwei Zhu; Karla Kerlikowske; Brian L Sprague; Tracy Onega; Diana S M Buist; Louise M Henderson; Robert A Smith
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 31.777

9.  Increasingly strong reduction in breast cancer mortality due to screening.

Authors:  G van Schoor; S M Moss; J D M Otten; R Donders; E Paap; G J den Heeten; R Holland; M J M Broeders; A L M Verbeek
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2011-02-22       Impact factor: 7.640

10.  Estimation of overdiagnosis using short-term trends and lead time estimates uncontaminated by overdiagnosed cases: Results from the Norwegian Breast Screening Programme.

Authors:  Dimitrios Michalopoulos; Stephen W Duffy
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2016-03-02       Impact factor: 2.136

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.