Literature DB >> 22031709

Effect of observing change from comparison mammograms on performance of screening mammography in a large community-based population.

Bonnie C Yankaskas1, Ryan C May, Jeanine Matuszewski, J Michael Bowling, Molly P Jarman, Bruce F Schroeder.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of comparison mammograms on accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV(1)), and cancer detection rate (CDR) of screening mammography to determine the role played by identification of change on comparison mammograms.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This HIPAA-compliant and institutional review board-approved prospective study was performed with waiver of patient informed consent. A total of 1,157,980 screening mammograms obtained between 1994 and 2008 in 435,183 women aged at least 40 years were included. Radiologists recorded presence of comparison mammograms and change, if seen. Women were followed for 1 year to monitor cancer occurrence. Performance measurements were calculated for screening with comparison mammograms versus screening without comparison mammograms and for screening with comparison mammograms that showed a change versus screening with comparison mammograms that did not show a change while controlling for age, breast density, and data clustering.
RESULTS: Comparison mammograms were available in 93% of examinations. For screening with comparison mammograms versus screening without comparison mammograms, CDR per 1000 women was 3.7 versus 7.1; recall rate, 6.9% versus 14.9%; sensitivity, 78.9% versus 87.4%; specificity, 93.5% versus 85.7%; and PPV(1), 5.4% versus 4.8%. For screening with comparison mammograms that showed a change versus screening with comparison mammograms that did not show a change, CDR per 1000 women was 25.4 versus 0.8; recall rate, 41.4% versus 2.0%; sensitivity, 96.6% versus 43.5%; specificity, 60.4% versus 98.1%; and PPV(1), 6.0% versus 3.9%. Detected cancers with change were 21.1% ductal carcinoma in situ and 78.9% invasive carcinoma. Detected cancers with no change were 19.3% ductal carcinoma in situ and 80.7% invasive carcinoma.
CONCLUSION: Performance is affected when change from comparison mammograms is noted. Without change, sensitivity is low and specificity is high. With change, sensitivity is high, with a high false-positive rate (low specificity). Further work is needed to appreciate changes that might indicate cancer and to identify changes that are likely not indicative of cancer. © RSNA, 2011.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22031709      PMCID: PMC3219912          DOI: 10.1148/radiol.11110653

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


  10 in total

1.  Effect of variations in operational definitions on performance estimates for screening mammography.

Authors:  R D Rosenberg; B C Yankaskas; W C Hunt; R Ballard-Barbash; N Urban; V L Ernster; K Kerlikowske; B Geller; P A Carney; S Taplin
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 3.173

2.  Effect on sensitivity and specificity of mammography screening with or without comparison of old mammograms.

Authors:  M G Thurfjell; B Vitak; E Azavedo; G Svane; E Thurfjell
Journal:  Acta Radiol       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 1.990

3.  Optimal reference mammography: a comparison of mammograms obtained 1 and 2 years before the present examination.

Authors:  Jules H Sumkin; Brenda L Holbert; Jennifer S Herrmann; Christiane A Hakim; Marie A Ganott; William R Poller; Ratan Shah; Lara A Hardesty; David Gur
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 3.959

4.  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

5.  Normal mammograms and the practice of obtaining previous mammograms: usefulness and costs.

Authors:  T E Wilson; V K Nijhawan; M A Helvie
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1996-03       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Performance of first mammography examination in women younger than 40 years.

Authors:  Bonnie C Yankaskas; Sebastien Haneuse; Julie M Kapp; Karla Kerlikowske; Berta Geller; Diana S M Buist
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2010-05-03       Impact factor: 13.506

7.  Differential value of comparison with previous examinations in diagnostic versus screening mammography.

Authors:  Elizabeth S Burnside; Edward A Sickles; Rita E Sohlich; Katherine E Dee
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 3.959

8.  Importance of comparison of current and prior mammograms in breast cancer screening.

Authors:  Antonius A J Roelofs; Nico Karssemeijer; Nora Wedekind; Christian Beck; Sander van Woudenberg; Peter R Snoeren; Jan H C L Hendriks; Marco Rosselli del Turco; Nils Bjurstam; Hans Junkermann; David Beijerinck; Brigitte Séradour; Carl J G Evertsz
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  The influence of previous films on screening mammographic interpretation and detection of breast carcinoma.

Authors:  M P Callaway; C R Boggis; S A Astley; I Hutt
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  1997-07       Impact factor: 2.350

10.  Initial versus subsequent screening mammography: comparison of findings and their prognostic significance.

Authors:  S D Frankel; E A Sickles; B N Curpen; R A Sollitto; S H Ominsky; H B Galvin
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1995-05       Impact factor: 3.959

  10 in total
  5 in total

1.  Classifying symmetrical differences and temporal change for the detection of malignant masses in mammography using deep neural networks.

Authors:  Thijs Kooi; Nico Karssemeijer
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2017-10-10

2.  Racial differences in false-positive mammogram rates: results from the ACRIN Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST).

Authors:  Anne Marie McCarthy; Philip Yamartino; Jianing Yang; Mirar Bristol; Emily F Conant; Katrina Armstrong
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 2.983

3.  Improving Screening Mammography Outcomes Through Comparison With Multiple Prior Mammograms.

Authors:  Jessica H Hayward; Kimberly M Ray; Dorota J Wisner; John Kornak; Weiwen Lin; Bonnie N Joe; Edward A Sickles
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2016-07-06       Impact factor: 3.959

4.  Breast microcalcifications: the UK RCR 5-point breast imaging system or BI-RADS; which is the better predictor of malignancy?

Authors:  Linda Metaxa; Nuala A Healy; Sylvia A O'Keeffe
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2019-08-09       Impact factor: 3.039

5.  Rates of positive lung cancer screening examinations in academic versus community practice.

Authors:  Louise M Henderson; Leon Bacchus; Thad Benefield; Roger Huamani Velasquez; M Patricia Rivera
Journal:  Transl Lung Cancer Res       Date:  2020-08
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.