Literature DB >> 2326455

Medical audit of a rapid-throughput mammography screening practice: methodology and results of 27,114 examinations.

E A Sickles1, S H Ominsky, R A Sollitto, H B Galvin, D L Monticciolo.   

Abstract

Medical audit results from the entire experience of a rapid-throughput mammography screening practice are presented, comprising 27,114 examinations conducted from April 1985 to September 1989. The authors screened a self-selected physician-referred population, almost 94% of whom were asymptomatic. Estimated sensitivity of initial mammography interpretation was 93.1% with a specificity of 94.2% and a positive predictive value of 10.0%. Biopsies prompted by screening yielded a diagnosis of malignancy in 32.1% of cases; 170 breast cancers were identified, 67.1% requiring mammographic needle localization. Median cancer size was 12 mm, the rate of axillary nodal metastasis was 11.0%, and the systemic metastasis rate was 1.2%. Of the cancers found, 76.5% were stage 0 or stage 1. Conducting a medical audit is the most convincing way to demonstrate the success of a mammography screening practice, thereby providing this important information for the benefit of screenees, referring physicians, third-party payers, and the personnel who perform the screening.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1990        PMID: 2326455     DOI: 10.1148/radiology.175.2.2326455

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


  17 in total

1.  Integrating Radiology and Hospital Information Systems: the advantage of shared data.

Authors:  P J Haug; T A Pryor; P R Frederick
Journal:  Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care       Date:  1992

2.  Breast Cancer OncoGuia.

Authors:  Paula Manchon; Josep M Borràs; Tàrsila Ferro; Josep Alfons Espinàs
Journal:  Clin Transl Oncol       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 3.405

3.  Timeliness of follow-up after abnormal screening mammography.

Authors:  K Kerlikowske
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 4.872

4.  Breast cancer racial differences before age 40--implications for screening.

Authors:  Edwin T Johnson
Journal:  J Natl Med Assoc       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 1.798

5.  Surgical mammography reporting in a limited resource environment.

Authors:  John P Mouton; Justus Apffelstaedt; Karin Baatjes
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 3.352

6.  Peer review of mammography interpretations in a breast cancer screening program.

Authors:  J Feldman; R A Smith; R Giusti; B DeBuono; J P Fulton; H D Scott
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1995-06       Impact factor: 9.308

7.  Needle biopsy of probably benign nonpalpable breast lesions.

Authors:  F M Hall
Journal:  West J Med       Date:  1994-03

8.  Auditing a breast MRI practice: performance measures for screening and diagnostic breast MRI.

Authors:  Bethany L Niell; Sara C Gavenonis; Tina Motazedi; Jessica Cott Chubiz; Elkan P Halpern; Elizabeth A Rafferty; Janie M Lee
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2014-04-29       Impact factor: 5.532

9.  Breast cancer detection with short-interval follow-up compared with return to annual screening in patients with benign stereotactic or US-guided breast biopsy results.

Authors:  Jason M Johnson; Alisa K Johnson; Ellen S O'Meara; Diana L Miglioretti; Berta M Geller; Elise N Hotaling; Sally D Herschorn
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2014-11-25       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Brief screens for mental disorders in primary care.

Authors:  A C Leon; M Olfson; M M Weissman; L Portera; B H Fireman; R S Blacklow; C Hoven; W E Broadhead
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1996-07       Impact factor: 5.128

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.