Literature DB >> 20601590

Effect of previous benign breast biopsy on the interpretive performance of subsequent screening mammography.

Stephen H Taplin1, 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.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Most breast biopsies will be negative for cancer. Benign breast biopsy can cause changes in the breast tissue, but whether such changes affect the interpretive performance of future screening mammography is not known.
METHODS: We prospectively evaluated whether self-reported benign breast biopsy was associated with reduced subsequent screening mammography performance using examination data from the mammography registries of the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium from January 2, 1996, through December 31, 2005. A positive interpretation was defined as a recommendation for any additional evaluation. Cancer was defined as any invasive breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ diagnosed within 1 year of mammography screening. Measures of mammography performance (sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value 1 [PPV1]) were compared both at woman level and breast level in the presence and absence of self-reported benign biopsy history. Referral to biopsy was considered a positive interpretation to calculate positive predictive value 2 (PPV2). Multivariable analysis of a correct interpretation on each performance measure was conducted after adjusting for registry, year of examination, patient characteristics, months since last mammogram, and availability of comparison film. Accuracy of the mammogram interpretation was measured using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). All statistical tests were two-sided.
RESULTS: A total of 2,007,381 screening mammograms were identified among 799,613 women, of which 14.6% mammograms were associated with self-reported previous breast biopsy. Multivariable adjusted models for mammography performance showed reduced specificity (odds ratio [OR] = 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.73 to 0.75, P < .001), PPV2 (OR = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.79 to 0.92, P < .001), and AUC (AUC 0.892 vs 0.925, P < .001) among women with self-reported benign biopsy. There was no difference in sensitivity or PPV1 in the same adjusted models, although unadjusted differences in both were found. Specificity was lowest among women with documented fine needle aspiration-the least invasive biopsy technique (OR = 0.58, 95% CI = 0.55 to 0.61, P < .001). Repeating the analysis among women with documented biopsy history, unilateral biopsy history, or restricted to invasive cancers did not change the results.
CONCLUSIONS: Self-reported benign breast biopsy history was associated with statistically significantly reduced mammography performance. The difference in performance was likely because of tissue characteristics rather than the biopsy itself.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20601590      PMCID: PMC2907407          DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djq233

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst        ISSN: 0027-8874            Impact factor:   13.506


  30 in total

Review 1.  Women need better information about routine mammography.

Authors:  Hazel Thornton; Adrian Edwards; Michael Baum
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-07-12

2.  Accuracy of screening mammography interpretation by characteristics of radiologists.

Authors:  William E Barlow; Chen Chi; Patricia A Carney; Stephen H Taplin; Carl D'Orsi; Gary Cutter; R Edward Hendrick; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2004-12-15       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  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

4.  Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium: a national mammography screening and outcomes database.

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

5.  Previous breast biopsy for benign disease rarely complicates or alters interpretation on screening mammography.

Authors:  P J Slanetz; A A Giardino; K A McCarthy; D A Hall; E F Halpern; R H Moore; D B Kopans
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 3.959

6.  Current medicolegal and confidentiality issues in large, multicenter research programs.

Authors:  P A Carney; B M Geller; H Moffett; M Ganger; M Sewell; W E Barlow; N Stalnaker; S H Taplin; C Sisk; V L Ernster; H A Wilkie; B Yankaskas; S P Poplack; N Urban; M M West; R D Rosenberg; S Michael; T D Mercurio; R Ballard-Barbash
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2000-08-15       Impact factor: 4.897

7.  Mammographic changes after excisional breast biopsy for benign disease.

Authors:  R J Brenner; J M Pfaff
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1996-10       Impact factor: 3.959

8.  Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Authors:  Linda L Humphrey; Mark Helfand; Benjamin K S Chan; Steven H Woolf
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2002-09-03       Impact factor: 25.391

9.  Updated overview of the Swedish Randomized Trials on Breast Cancer Screening with Mammography: age group 40-49 at randomization.

Authors:  L G Larsson; I Andersson; N Bjurstam; G Fagerberg; J Frisell; L Tabár; L Nyström
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  1997

10.  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

View more
  5 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.  The potential use of ultra-low radiation dose images in digital mammography--a clinical proof-of-concept study in craniocaudal views.

Authors:  A M J Bluekens; W J H Veldkamp; K H Schuur; N Karssemeijer; M J M Broeders; G J den Heeten
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2015-01-09       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  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

4.  Accuracy of screening mammography in women with a history of lobular carcinoma in situ or atypical hyperplasia of the breast.

Authors:  Nehmat Houssami; Linn A Abraham; Tracy Onega; Laura C Collins; Brian L Sprague; Deirdre A Hill; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2014-05-07       Impact factor: 4.872

5.  Trends in breast biopsies for abnormalities detected at screening mammography: a population-based study in the Netherlands.

Authors:  V van Breest Smallenburg; J Nederend; A C Voogd; J W W Coebergh; M van Beek; F H Jansen; W J Louwman; L E M Duijm
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2013-05-21       Impact factor: 7.640

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.