Brian L Sprague1,2,3, Diana L Miglioretti4,5, Christoph I Lee6,7, Hannah Perry2,3, Anna A N Tosteson8,9, Karla Kerlikowske10,11,12. 1. Department of Surgery, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont, USA. 2. Department of Radiology, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont, USA. 3. University of Vermont Cancer Center, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont, USA. 4. Division of Biostatistics, Department of Public Health Sciences, University of California Davis School of Medicine, Davis, California, USA. 5. Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Kaiser Permanente Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA. 6. Department of Radiology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington, USA. 7. Hutchinson Institute for Cancer Outcomes Research, Seattle, Washington, USA. 8. Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Lebanon, New Hampshire, USA. 9. Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, New Hampshire, USA. 10. Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA. 11. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA. 12. General Internal Medicine Section, Department of Veterans Affairs, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Established mammography screening performance metrics use the initial screening mammography assessment because they were developed for radiologist performance auditing, yet these metrics are frequently used to inform health policy and screening decision making. The authors have developed new performance metrics based on the final assessment that consider the entire screening episode, including diagnostic workup. METHODS: The authors used data from 2,512,577 screening episodes during 2005-2017 at 146 facilities in the United States participating in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Screening performance metrics based on the final assessment of the screening episode were compared with conventional metrics defined with the initial assessment. Results were also stratified by breast density and breast cancer risk. RESULTS: The cancer detection rates were similar for the final assessment (4.1 per 1000; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.8-4.3 per 1000) and the initial assessment (4.1 per 1000; 95% CI, 3.9-4.3 per 1000). The interval cancer rate was 12% higher when it was based on the final assessment (0.77 per 1000; 95% CI, 0.71-0.83 per 1000) versus the initial assessment (0.69 per 1000; 95% CI, 0.64-0.74 per 1000), and this resulted in a modest difference in sensitivity (84.1% [95% CI, 83.0%-85.1%] vs 85.7% [95% CI, 84.8%-86.6%], respectively). Absolute differences in the interval cancer rate between final and initial assessments increased with breast density and breast cancer risk (eg, a difference of 0.29 per 1000 for women with extremely dense breasts and a 5-year risk >2.49%). CONCLUSIONS: Established screening performance metrics underestimate the interval cancer rate of a mammography screening episode, particularly for women with dense breasts or an elevated breast cancer risk. Women, clinicians, policymakers, and researchers should use final-assessment performance metrics to support informed screening decisions.
BACKGROUND: Established mammography screening performance metrics use the initial screening mammography assessment because they were developed for radiologist performance auditing, yet these metrics are frequently used to inform health policy and screening decision making. The authors have developed new performance metrics based on the final assessment that consider the entire screening episode, including diagnostic workup. METHODS: The authors used data from 2,512,577 screening episodes during 2005-2017 at 146 facilities in the United States participating in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Screening performance metrics based on the final assessment of the screening episode were compared with conventional metrics defined with the initial assessment. Results were also stratified by breast density and breast cancer risk. RESULTS: The cancer detection rates were similar for the final assessment (4.1 per 1000; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.8-4.3 per 1000) and the initial assessment (4.1 per 1000; 95% CI, 3.9-4.3 per 1000). The interval cancer rate was 12% higher when it was based on the final assessment (0.77 per 1000; 95% CI, 0.71-0.83 per 1000) versus the initial assessment (0.69 per 1000; 95% CI, 0.64-0.74 per 1000), and this resulted in a modest difference in sensitivity (84.1% [95% CI, 83.0%-85.1%] vs 85.7% [95% CI, 84.8%-86.6%], respectively). Absolute differences in the interval cancer rate between final and initial assessments increased with breast density and breast cancer risk (eg, a difference of 0.29 per 1000 for women with extremely dense breasts and a 5-year risk >2.49%). CONCLUSIONS: Established screening performance metrics underestimate the interval cancer rate of a mammography screening episode, particularly for women with dense breasts or an elevated breast cancer risk. Women, clinicians, policymakers, and researchers should use final-assessment performance metrics to support informed screening decisions.
Authors: Joy Melnikow; Joshua J Fenton; Evelyn P Whitlock; Diana L Miglioretti; Meghan S Weyrich; Jamie H Thompson; Kunal Shah Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2016-01-12 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Diana S M Buist; Melissa L Anderson; Robert A Smith; Patricia A Carney; Diana L Miglioretti; Barbara S Monsees; Edward A Sickles; Stephen H Taplin; Berta M Geller; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Tracy L Onega Journal: Radiology Date: 2014-06-24 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Marije F Bakker; Stéphanie V de Lange; Ruud M Pijnappel; Ritse M Mann; Petra H M Peeters; Evelyn M Monninkhof; Marleen J Emaus; Claudette E Loo; Robertus H C Bisschops; Marc B I Lobbes; Matthijn D F de Jong; Katya M Duvivier; Jeroen Veltman; Nico Karssemeijer; Harry J de Koning; Paul J van Diest; Willem P T M Mali; Maurice A A J van den Bosch; Wouter B Veldhuis; Carla H van Gils Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2019-11-28 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Karla Kerlikowske; Weiwei Zhu; Anna N A Tosteson; Brian L Sprague; Jeffrey A Tice; Constance D Lehman; Diana L Miglioretti Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2015-05-19 Impact factor: 25.391
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
Authors: Rebecca A Hubbard; Weiwei Zhu; Ruslan Horblyuk; Leah Karliner; Brian L Sprague; Louise Henderson; David Lee; Tracy Onega; Diana S M Buist; Alison Sweet Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2013-03-08 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Karla Kerlikowske; Brian L Sprague; Anna N A Tosteson; Karen J Wernli; Garth H Rauscher; Dianne Johnson; Diana S M Buist; Tracy Onega; Louise M Henderson; Ellen S O'Meara; Diana L Miglioretti Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2019-09-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Karla Kerlikowske; Yu-Ru Su; Brian L Sprague; Anna N A Tosteson; Diana S M Buist; Tracy Onega; Louise M Henderson; Nila Alsheik; Michael C S Bissell; Ellen S O'Meara; Christoph I Lee; Diana L Miglioretti Journal: JAMA Date: 2022-06-14 Impact factor: 157.335
Authors: Marc D Ryser; Jane Lange; Lurdes Y T Inoue; Ellen S O'Meara; Charlotte Gard; Diana L Miglioretti; Jean-Luc Bulliard; Andrew F Brouwer; E Shelley Hwang; Ruth B Etzioni Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2022-03-01 Impact factor: 51.598
Authors: Janie M Lee; Laura E Ichikawa; Karen J Wernli; Erin Bowles; Jennifer M Specht; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana L Miglioretti; Kathryn P Lowry; Anna N A Tosteson; Natasha K Stout; Nehmat Houssami; Tracy Onega; Diana S M Buist Journal: Radiology Date: 2021-05-18 Impact factor: 29.146
Authors: Brian L Sprague; Ellen S O'Meara; Christoph I Lee; Janie M Lee; Louise M Henderson; Diana S M Buist; Nila Alsheik; Teresita Macarol; Hannah Perry; Anna N A Tosteson; Tracy Onega; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana L Miglioretti Journal: Prev Med Date: 2021-06-30 Impact factor: 4.018