Literature DB >> 22993383

Sensitivity and specificity of mammographic screening as practised in Vermont and Norway.

S Hofvind1, B M Geller, J Skelly, P M Vacek.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine the sensitivity and specificity of screening mammography as performed in Vermont, USA, and Norway.
METHODS: Incident screening data from 1997 to 2003 for female patients aged 50-69 years from the Vermont Breast Cancer Surveillance System (116 996 subsequent screening examinations) and the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program (360 872 subsequent screening examinations) were compared. Sensitivity and specificity estimates for the initial (based on screening mammogram only) and final (screening mammogram plus any further diagnostic imaging) interpretations were directly adjusted for age using 5-year age intervals for the combined Vermont and Norway population, and computed for 1 and 2 years of follow-up, which ended at the time of the next screening mammogram.
RESULTS: For the 1-year follow-up, sensitivities for initial assessments were 82.0%, 88.2% and 92.5% for 1-, 2- and >2-year screening intervals, respectively, in Vermont (p=0.022). For final assessments, the values were 73.6%, 83.3% and 81.2% (p=0.047), respectively. For Norway, sensitivities for initial assessments were 91.0% and 91.3% (p=0.529) for 2- and >2-year intervals, and 90.7% and 91.3%, respectively, for final assessments (p=0.630). Specificity was lower in Vermont than in Norway for each screening interval and for all screening intervals combined, for both initial (90.6% vs 97.8% for all intervals; p<0.001) and final (98.8% vs 99.5% for all intervals; p<0.001) assessments.
CONCLUSION: Our study showed higher sensitivity and specificity in a biennial screening programme with an independent double reading than in a predominantly annual screening program with a single reading. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This study demonstrates that higher recall rates and lower specificity are not always associated with higher sensitivity of screening mammography. Differences in the screening processes in Norway and Vermont suggest potential areas for improvement in the latter.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22993383      PMCID: PMC3611728          DOI: 10.1259/bjr/15168178

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Radiol        ISSN: 0007-1285            Impact factor:   3.039


  26 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.  Use of the American College of Radiology BI-RADS to report on the mammographic evaluation of women with signs and symptoms of breast disease.

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

3.  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

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.  Increase in cancer detection and recall rates with independent double interpretation of screening mammography.

Authors:  Susan C Harvey; Berta Geller; Robert G Oppenheimer; Melanie Pinet; Leslie Riddell; Brian Garra
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 3.959

6.  Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers.

Authors:  M T Mandelson; N Oestreicher; P L Porter; D White; C A Finder; S H Taplin; E White
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2000-07-05       Impact factor: 13.506

7.  Benefit of independent double reading in a population-based mammography screening program.

Authors:  E L Thurfjell; K A Lernevall; A A Taube
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1994-04       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Independent double reading of screening mammograms in The Netherlands: effect of arbitration following reader disagreements.

Authors:  Lucien E M Duijm; Johanna H Groenewoud; Jan H C L Hendriks; Harry J de Koning
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2004-03-24       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  Independent double reading of screening mammograms.

Authors:  S Ciatto; M R Del Turco; D Morrone; S Catarzi; D Ambrogetti; A Cariddi; M Zappa
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  1995       Impact factor: 2.136

10.  Seventeen-year evaluation of breast cancer screening: the DOM project, The Netherlands. Diagnostisch Onderzoek (investigation) Mammacarcinoom.

Authors:  G A Miltenburg; P H Peeters; J Fracheboud; H J Collette
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  15 in total

1.  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

2.  Comparing sensitivity and specificity of screening mammography in the United States and Denmark.

Authors:  Katja Kemp Jacobsen; Ellen S O'Meara; Dustin Key; Diana S M Buist; Karla Kerlikowske; Ilse Vejborg; Brian L Sprague; Elsebeth Lynge; My von Euler-Chelpin
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2015-06-01       Impact factor: 7.396

3.  National Performance Benchmarks for Modern Diagnostic Digital Mammography: Update from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.

Authors:  Brian L Sprague; Robert F Arao; Diana L Miglioretti; Louise M Henderson; Diana S M Buist; Tracy Onega; Garth H Rauscher; Janie M Lee; Anna N A Tosteson; Karla Kerlikowske; Constance D Lehman
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2017-02-28       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Estimating Cancer Screening Sensitivity and Specificity Using Healthcare Utilization Data: Defining the Accuracy Assessment Interval.

Authors:  Jessica Chubak; Andrea N Burnett-Hartman; William E Barlow; Douglas A Corley; Jennifer M Croswell; Christine Neslund-Dudas; Anil Vachani; Michelle I Silver; Jasmin A Tiro; Aruna Kamineni
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2022-08-02       Impact factor: 4.090

5.  Circulating cell-free DNA-based epigenetic assay can detect early breast cancer.

Authors:  Natsue Uehiro; Fumiaki Sato; Fengling Pu; Sunao Tanaka; Masahiro Kawashima; Kosuke Kawaguchi; Masahiro Sugimoto; Shigehira Saji; Masakazu Toi
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2016-12-19       Impact factor: 6.466

6.  Risk of breast cancer after false-positive results in mammographic screening.

Authors:  Marta Román; Xavier Castells; Solveig Hofvind; My von Euler-Chelpin
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2016-02-25       Impact factor: 4.452

Review 7.  Liquid biopsy for cancer diagnosis using vibrational spectroscopy: systematic review.

Authors:  D J Anderson; R G Anderson; S J Moug; M J Baker
Journal:  BJS Open       Date:  2020-05-19

8.  Long-term risk of screen-detected and interval breast cancer after false-positive results at mammography screening: joint analysis of three national cohorts.

Authors:  Marta Román; Solveig Hofvind; My von Euler-Chelpin; Xavier Castells
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2018-12-19       Impact factor: 7.640

9.  Association of mammographic density with pathologic findings.

Authors:  Nasrin Ahmadinejad; Samaneh Movahedinia; Sajjadeh Movahedinia; Mona Shahriari
Journal:  Iran Red Crescent Med J       Date:  2013-12-05       Impact factor: 0.611

10.  Cross-national comparison of screening mammography accuracy measures in U.S., Norway, and Spain.

Authors:  Laia Domingo; Solveig Hofvind; Rebecca A Hubbard; Marta Román; David Benkeser; Maria Sala; Xavier Castells
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-11-11       Impact factor: 5.315

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.