Literature DB >> 28582633

Performance Benchmarks for Screening Breast MR Imaging in Community Practice.

Janie M Lee1, Laura Ichikawa1, Elizabeth Valencia1, Diana L Miglioretti1, Karen Wernli1, Diana S M Buist1, Karla Kerlikowske1, Louise M Henderson1, Brian L Sprague1, Tracy Onega1, Garth H Rauscher1, Constance D Lehman1.   

Abstract

Purpose To compare screening magnetic resonance (MR) imaging performance in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) with Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) benchmarks. Materials and Methods This study was approved by the institutional review board and compliant with HIPAA and included BCSC screening MR examinations collected between 2005 and 2013 from 5343 women (8387 MR examinations) linked to regional Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program registries, state tumor registries, and pathologic information databases that identified breast cancer cases and tumor characteristics. Clinical, demographic, and imaging characteristics were assessed. Performance measures were calculated according to BI-RADS fifth edition and included cancer detection rate (CDR), positive predictive value of biopsy recommendation (PPV2), sensitivity, and specificity. Results The median patient age was 52 years; 52% of MR examinations were performed in women with a first-degree family history of breast cancer, 46% in women with a personal history of breast cancer, and 15% in women with both risk factors. Screening MR imaging depicted 146 cancers, and 35 interval cancers were identified (181 total-54 in situ, 125 invasive, and two status unknown). The CDR was 17 per 1000 screening examinations (95% confidence interval [CI]: 15, 20 per 1000 screening examinations; BI-RADS benchmark, 20-30 per 1000 screening examinations). PPV2 was 19% (95% CI: 16%, 22%; benchmark, 15%). Sensitivity was 81% (95% CI: 75%, 86%; benchmark, >80%), and specificity was 83% (95% CI: 82%, 84%; benchmark, 85%-90%). The median tumor size of invasive cancers was 10 mm; 88% were node negative. Conclusion The interpretative performance of screening MR imaging in the BCSC meets most BI-RADS benchmarks and approaches benchmark levels for remaining measures. Clinical practice performance data can inform ongoing benchmark development and help identify areas for quality improvement. © RSNA, 2017.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28582633      PMCID: PMC5621720          DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2017162033

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


  18 in total

Review 1.  Ten criteria for effective screening: their application to multislice CT screening for pulmonary and colorectal cancers.

Authors:  N A Obuchowski; R J Graham; M E Baker; K A Powell
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 3.959

2.  Performance benchmarks for screening mammography.

Authors:  Robert D Rosenberg; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Linn A Abraham; Edward A Sickles; Constance D Lehman; Berta M Geller; Patricia A Carney; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana S M Buist; Donald L Weaver; William E Barlow; Rachel Ballard-Barbash
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 3.  Screening for disease.

Authors:  W C Black; H G Welch
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1997-01       Impact factor: 3.959

4.  Screening Breast MRI in Patients Previously Treated for Breast Cancer: Diagnostic Yield for Cancer and Abnormal Interpretation Rate.

Authors:  Catherine S Giess; Patricia S Poole; Sona A Chikarmane; Dorothy A Sippo; Robyn L Birdwell
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2015-07-02       Impact factor: 3.173

5.  Breast MRI screening of women with a personal history of breast cancer.

Authors:  Sandra Brennan; Laura Liberman; D David Dershaw; Elizabeth Morris
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 3.959

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

Review 7.  Systematic review: using magnetic resonance imaging to screen women at high risk for breast cancer.

Authors:  Ellen Warner; Hans Messersmith; Petrina Causer; Andrea Eisen; Rene Shumak; Donald Plewes
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2008-05-06       Impact factor: 25.391

8.  Disparities in the use of screening magnetic resonance imaging of the breast in community practice by race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status.

Authors:  Jennifer S Haas; Deirdre A Hill; Robert D Wellman; Rebecca A Hubbard; Christoph I Lee; Karen J Wernli; Natasha K Stout; Anna N A Tosteson; Louise M Henderson; Jennifer A Alford-Teaster; Tracy L Onega
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2015-12-28       Impact factor: 6.860

9.  Patterns of breast magnetic resonance imaging use in community practice.

Authors:  Karen J Wernli; Wendy B DeMartini; Laura Ichikawa; Constance D Lehman; Tracy Onega; Karla Kerlikowske; Louise M Henderson; Berta M Geller; Mike Hofmann; Bonnie C Yankaskas
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 21.873

10.  Rapid increase in breast magnetic resonance imaging use: trends from 2000 to 2011.

Authors:  Natasha K Stout; Larissa Nekhlyudov; Lingling Li; Elisabeth S Malin; Dennis Ross-Degnan; Diana S M Buist; Marjorie A Rosenberg; Marina Alfisher; Suzanne W Fletcher
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 21.873

View more
  15 in total

1.  Clinical Benefits, Harms, and Cost-Effectiveness of Breast Cancer Screening for Survivors of Childhood Cancer Treated With Chest Radiation : A Comparative Modeling Study.

Authors:  Jennifer M Yeh; Kathryn P Lowry; Clyde B Schechter; Lisa R Diller; Oguzhan Alagoz; Gregory T Armstrong; John M Hampton; Wendy Leisenring; Qi Liu; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Diana L Miglioretti; Chaya S Moskowitz; Kevin C Oeffinger; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Natasha K Stout
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2020-07-07       Impact factor: 25.391

2.  Breast Biopsy Intensity and Findings Following Breast Cancer Screening in Women With and Without a Personal History of Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Diana S M Buist; Linn Abraham; Christoph I Lee; Janie M Lee; Constance Lehman; Ellen S O'Meara; Natasha K Stout; Louise M Henderson; Deirdre Hill; Karen J Wernli; Jennifer S Haas; Anna N A Tosteson; Karla Kerlikowske; Tracy Onega
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2018-04-01       Impact factor: 21.873

3.  Identifying Effective Supplemental Screening Strategies for Women with a Personal History of Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Christoph I Lee; Janie M Lee
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2020-02-25       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Utility of Diffusion-weighted Imaging to Decrease Unnecessary Biopsies Prompted by Breast MRI: A Trial of the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group (A6702).

Authors:  Habib Rahbar; Zheng Zhang; Thomas L Chenevert; Justin Romanoff; Averi E Kitsch; Lucy G Hanna; Sara M Harvey; Linda Moy; Wendy B DeMartini; Basak Dogan; Wei T Yang; Lilian C Wang; Bonnie N Joe; Karen Y Oh; Colleen H Neal; Elizabeth S McDonald; Mitchell D Schnall; Constance D Lehman; Christopher E Comstock; Savannah C Partridge
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2019-01-15       Impact factor: 12.531

5.  Effect of Background Parenchymal Enhancement on Breast MR Imaging Interpretive Performance in Community-based Practices.

Authors:  Kimberly M Ray; Karla Kerlikowske; Iryna V Lobach; Michael B Hofmann; Heather I Greenwood; Vignesh A Arasu; Nola M Hylton; Bonnie N Joe
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2017-10-25       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Surveillance Breast MRI and Mammography: Comparison in Women with a Personal History of Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Karen J Wernli; Laura Ichikawa; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana S M Buist; Susan D Brandzel; Mary Bush; Dianne Johnson; Louise M Henderson; Larissa Nekhlyudov; Tracy Onega; Brian L Sprague; Janie M Lee; Constance D Lehman; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2019-06-04       Impact factor: 29.146

7.  Not all false positive diagnoses are equal: On the prognostic implications of false-positive diagnoses made in breast MRI versus in mammography / digital tomosynthesis screening.

Authors:  Christiane K Kuhl; Annika Keulers; Kevin Strobel; Hannah Schneider; Nadine Gaisa; Simone Schrading
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2018-02-09       Impact factor: 6.466

8.  Mean Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Is a Sufficient Conventional Diffusion-weighted MRI Metric to Improve Breast MRI Diagnostic Performance: Results from the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group A6702 Diffusion Imaging Trial.

Authors:  Elizabeth S McDonald; Justin Romanoff; Habib Rahbar; Averi E Kitsch; Sara M Harvey; Jennifer G Whisenant; Thomas E Yankeelov; Linda Moy; Wendy B DeMartini; Basak E Dogan; Wei T Yang; Lilian C Wang; Bonnie N Joe; Lisa J Wilmes; Nola M Hylton; Karen Y Oh; Luminita A Tudorica; Colleen H Neal; Dariya I Malyarenko; Christopher E Comstock; Mitchell D Schnall; Thomas L Chenevert; Savannah C Partridge
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2020-11-17       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  Breast Cancer Screening Among Childhood Cancer Survivors Treated Without Chest Radiation: Clinical Benefits and Cost-Effectiveness.

Authors:  Jennifer M Yeh; Kathryn P Lowry; Clyde B Schechter; Lisa R Diller; Grace O'Brien; Oguzhan Alagoz; Gregory T Armstrong; John M Hampton; Melissa M Hudson; Wendy Leisenring; Qi Liu; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Diana L Miglioretti; Chaya S Moskowitz; Paul C Nathan; Joseph P Neglia; Kevin C Oeffinger; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Natasha K Stout
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2022-02-07       Impact factor: 11.816

10.  Comparison of Abbreviated Breast MRI vs Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Breast Cancer Detection Among Women With Dense Breasts Undergoing Screening.

Authors:  Christopher E Comstock; Constantine Gatsonis; Gillian M Newstead; Bradley S Snyder; Ilana F Gareen; Jennifer T Bergin; Habib Rahbar; Janice S Sung; Christina Jacobs; Jennifer A Harvey; Mary H Nicholson; Robert C Ward; Jacqueline Holt; Andrew Prather; Kathy D Miller; Mitchell D Schnall; Christiane K Kuhl
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2020-02-25       Impact factor: 157.335

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.