Literature DB >> 26866649

The National Mammography Database: Preliminary Data.

Cindy S Lee1, Mythreyi Bhargavan-Chatfield2, Elizabeth S Burnside3, Paul Nagy4, Edward A Sickles1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purposes of our study were to analyze screening mammography data submitted to the National Mammography Database (NMD) since its inception to confirm data collection feasibility, to draw parallels to data from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC), and to examine trends over time. We also retrospectively evaluated practice-level variation in terms of practice type, practice setting, census region, and annual volume.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from 90 mammography facilities in the NMD registry were analyzed. The registry receives mammography data collected as part of standard clinical practice, including self-reported demographic information, clinical findings, screening mammography interpretation, and biopsy results. Outcome metrics calculated were cancer detection rate, recall rate, and positive predictive values for biopsy recommended (PPV2) and biopsy performed (PPV3).
RESULTS: The NMD successfully collected and analyzed data for 3,181,437 screening mammograms performed between January 2008 and December 2012. Mean values for outcomes were cancer detection rate of 3.43 per 1000 (95% CI, 3.2-3.7), recall rate of 10% (95% CI, 9.3-10.7%), PPV2 of 18.5% (95% CI, 16.7-20.2%), and PPV3 of 29.2% (95% CI, 26.2-32.3%). No statistically significant difference was seen in performance measurements on the basis of practice type, practice setting, census region, or annual volume. NMD performance measurements parallel those reported by the BCSC.
CONCLUSION: The NMD has become the fastest growing mammography registry in the United States, providing nationwide performance metrics and permitting comparison with published benchmarks. Our study shows the feasibility of using the NMD to audit mammography facilities and to provide current, ongoing benchmark data.

Entities:  

Keywords:  medical auditing; national mammography database; performance benchmarks; screening mammography

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26866649     DOI: 10.2214/AJR.15.14312

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  21 in total

1.  Association of Patient Age With Outcomes of Current-Era, Large-Scale Screening Mammography: Analysis of Data From the National Mammography Database.

Authors:  Cindy S Lee; Debapriya Sengupta; Mythreyi Bhargavan-Chatfield; Edward A Sickles; Elizabeth S Burnside; Margarita L Zuley
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2017-08-01       Impact factor: 31.777

Review 2.  Imaging Surveillance After Primary Breast Cancer Treatment.

Authors:  Diana L Lam; Nehmat Houssami; Janie M Lee
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2017-01-11       Impact factor: 3.959

3.  BI-RADS Category 3 Is a Safe and Effective Alternative to Biopsy or Surgical Excision.

Authors:  Linda Moy
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2020-05-19       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Personalized Screening for Breast Cancer: Rationale, Present Practices, and Future Directions.

Authors:  Tanir M Allweis; Naama Hermann; Rinat Berenstein-Molho; Michal Guindy
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2021-01-04       Impact factor: 5.344

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

Authors:  Constance D Lehman; Robert F Arao; Brian L Sprague; Janie M Lee; Diana S M Buist; Karla Kerlikowske; Louise M Henderson; Tracy Onega; Anna N A Tosteson; Garth H Rauscher; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2016-12-05       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Value of BI-RADS 3 Audits.

Authors:  Prithwijit Roychowdhury; Gopal R Vijayaraghavan; John Roubil; Imani M Williams; Efaza Siddiqui; Srinivasan Vedantham
Journal:  Biomed J Sci Tech Res       Date:  2022-02-14

7.  Mammography Performance Benchmarks in an Era of Value-based Care.

Authors:  Janie M Lee; Diana L Miglioretti; Elizabeth S Burnside; Elizabeth A Morris; Robert A Smith; Constance D Lehman
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  A half-second glimpse often lets radiologists identify breast cancer cases even when viewing the mammogram of the opposite breast.

Authors:  Karla K Evans; Tamara Miner Haygood; Julie Cooper; Anne-Marie Culpan; Jeremy M Wolfe
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2016-08-29       Impact factor: 11.205

9.  Linkage of the ACR National Mammography Database to the Network of State Cancer Registries: Proof of Concept Evaluation by the ACR National Mammography Database Committee.

Authors:  Margarita L Zuley; Robert M Nishikawa; Cindy S Lee; Elizabeth Burnside; Robert Rosenberg; Edward A Sickles; Wendie Berg; Jessica Leung; Jennifer Harvey; Debapriya Sengupta; David Gur
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2018-08-09       Impact factor: 5.532

10.  The "Sweet Spot" Revisited: Optimal Recall Rates for Cancer Detection With 2D and 3D Digital Screening Mammography in the Metro Chicago Breast Cancer Registry.

Authors:  Garth H Rauscher; Anne Marie Murphy; Qiong Qiu; Therese A Dolecek; Katherine Tossas; Yanyang Liu; Nila H Alsheik
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2021-02-10       Impact factor: 3.959

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.