Literature DB >> 23471650

Diagnostic imaging and biopsy pathways following abnormal screen-film and digital screening mammography.

Rebecca A Hubbard1, Weiwei Zhu, Ruslan Horblyuk, Leah Karliner, Brian L Sprague, Louise Henderson, David Lee, Tracy Onega, Diana S M Buist, Alison Sweet.   

Abstract

The transition from screen-film to digital mammography may have altered diagnostic evaluation of women following a positive screening examination. This study compared the use and timeliness of diagnostic imaging and biopsy for women screened with screen-film or digital mammography. Data were obtained from 35,321 positive screening mammograms on 32,087 women aged 40-89 years, from 22 breast cancer surveillance consortium facilities in 2005-2008. Diagnostic pathways were classified by their inclusion of diagnostic mammography, ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, and biopsy. We compared time to resolution and frequency of diagnostic pathways by patient characteristics, screening exam modality, and radiology facility. Between-facility differences were evaluated by computing the proportion of mammograms receiving follow-up with a particular pathway for each facility and examining variation in these proportions across facilities. Multinomial logistic regression adjusting for age, calendar year, and facility compared odds of follow-up with each pathway. The median time to resolution of a positive screening mammogram was 10 days. Compared to screen-film mammograms, digital mammograms were more frequently followed by only a single diagnostic mammogram (46 vs. 36 %). Pathways following digital screening mammography were also less likely to include biopsy (16 vs. 20 %). However, in adjusted analyses, most differences were not statistically significant (p = 0.857 for mammography only; p = 0.03 for biopsy). Substantial variability in diagnostic pathway frequency was seen across facilities. For instance, the frequency of evaluation with diagnostic mammography alone ranged from 23 to 55 % across facilities. Differences in evaluation of positive digital and screen-film screening mammograms were minor, and appeared to be largely attributable to substantial variation between radiology facilities. To guide health systems in their efforts to eliminate practices that do not contribute to effective care, we need further research to identify the causes of this variation and the best evidence-based approach for follow-up.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23471650      PMCID: PMC3640408          DOI: 10.1007/s10549-013-2466-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat        ISSN: 0167-6806            Impact factor:   4.872


  21 in total

1.  IOM report sets policy priorities for improving breast cancer screening.

Authors:  L Newman
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2001-04-18       Impact factor: 13.506

2.  Likelihood of additional work-up among women undergoing routine screening mammography: the impact of age, breast density, and hormone therapy use.

Authors:  Patricia A Carney; Claudia J Kasales; Anna N A Tosteson; Julia E Weiss; Martha E Goodrich; Steven P Poplack; Wendy S Wells; Linda Titus-Ernstoff
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 4.018

3.  Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST.

Authors:  Etta D Pisano; R Edward Hendrick; Martin J Yaffe; Janet K Baum; Suddhasatta Acharyya; Jean B Cormack; Lucy A Hanna; Emily F Conant; Laurie L Fajardo; Lawrence W Bassett; Carl J D'Orsi; Roberta A Jong; Murray Rebner; Anna N A Tosteson; Constantine A Gatsonis
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Cost-effectiveness of digital mammography breast cancer screening.

Authors:  Anna N A Tosteson; Natasha K Stout; Dennis G Fryback; Suddhasatta Acharyya; Benjamin A Herman; Lucy G Hannah; Etta D Pisano
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2008-01-01       Impact factor: 25.391

5.  Resource use and cost of diagnostic workup of women with suspected breast cancer.

Authors:  David W Lee; Paul E Stang; George A Goldberg; Merle Haberman
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  2008-12-12       Impact factor: 2.431

6.  Performance benchmarks for diagnostic mammography.

Authors:  Edward A Sickles; Diana L Miglioretti; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Berta M Geller; Jessica W T Leung; Robert D Rosenberg; Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Bonnie C Yankaskas
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  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

Review 8.  Screening for breast cancer: an update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Authors:  Heidi D Nelson; Kari Tyne; Arpana Naik; Christina Bougatsos; Benjamin K Chan; Linda Humphrey
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2009-11-17       Impact factor: 25.391

9.  Effects of digital mammography uptake on downstream breast-related care among older women.

Authors:  Rebecca A Hubbard; Weiwei Zhu; Tracy L Onega; Paul Fishman; Louise M Henderson; Anna N A Tosteson; Diana S M Buist
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 2.983

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
  4 in total

1.  Using semi-Markov processes to study timeliness and tests used in the diagnostic evaluation of suspected breast cancer.

Authors:  R A Hubbard; J Lange; Y Zhang; B A Salim; J R Stroud; L Y T Inoue
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2016-07-21       Impact factor: 2.373

2.  New mammography screening performance metrics based on the entire screening episode.

Authors:  Brian L Sprague; Diana L Miglioretti; Christoph I Lee; Hannah Perry; Anna A N Tosteson; Karla Kerlikowske
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2020-05-06       Impact factor: 6.860

3.  Value analysis of digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer screening in a commercially-insured US population.

Authors:  Machaon M Bonafede; Vivek B Kalra; Jeffrey D Miller; Laurie L Fajardo
Journal:  Clinicoecon Outcomes Res       Date:  2015-01-12

4.  Value of digital mammography in predicting lymphovascular invasion of breast cancer.

Authors:  Zhuangsheng Liu; Ruqiong Li; Keming Liang; Junhao Chen; Xiangmeng Chen; Xiaoping Li; Ronggang Li; Xin Zhang; Lilei Yi; Wansheng Long
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2020-04-03       Impact factor: 4.430

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.