Literature DB >> 33566635

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

Garth H Rauscher1, Anne Marie Murphy2, Qiong Qiu3, Therese A Dolecek1, Katherine Tossas4, Yanyang Liu3, Nila H Alsheik3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE. One central question pertaining to mammography quality relates to discerning the optimal recall rate to maximize cancer detection while minimizing unnecessary downstream diagnostic imaging and breast biopsies. We examined the trade-offs for higher recall rates in terms of biopsy recommendations and cancer detection in a single large health care organization. MATERIALS AND METHODS. We included 2D analog, 2D digital, and 3D digital (tomosynthesis) screening mammography examinations among women 40-79 years old performed between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2017, with cancer follow-up through 2018. There were 36, 67, and 38 radiologists who read at least 1000 2D analog examinations, 2D digital examinations, and 3D tomosynthesis examinations, respectively, who were included in these analyses. Using logistic regression with marginal standardization, we estimated radiologist-specific mean recall (abnormal interpretations/1000 mammograms), biopsy recommendation, cancer detection (screening-detected in situ and invasive cancers/1000 mammograms), and minimally invasive cancer detection rates while adjusting for differences in patient characteristics. RESULTS. Among 1,060,655 screening mammograms, the mean recall rate was 10.7%, the cancer detection rate was 4.0/1000 mammograms, and the biopsy recommendation rate was 1.60%. Recall rates between 7% and 9% appeared to maximize cancer detection while minimizing unnecessary biopsies. CONCLUSION. The results of this investigation are in contrast to those of a recent study suggesting appropriateness of higher recall rates. The "sweet spot" for optimal cancer detection appears to be in the recall rate range of 7-9% for both 2D digital mammography and 3D tomosynthesis. Too many women are being called back for diagnostic imaging, and new benchmarks could be set to reduce this burden.

Entities:  

Keywords:  breast cancer; mammography; quality improvement; recall rate; screening

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33566635      PMCID: PMC8087168          DOI: 10.2214/AJR.19.22429

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


  22 in total

1.  An analysis of 11.3 million screening tests examining the association between recall and cancer detection rates in the English NHS breast cancer screening programme.

Authors:  R G Blanks; R M Given-Wilson; S L Cohen; J Patnick; R J Alison; M G Wallis
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2019-02-04       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Screening mammography: do women prefer a higher recall rate given the possibility of earlier detection of cancer?

Authors:  Marie A Ganott; Jules H Sumkin; Jill L King; Amy H Klym; Victor J Catullo; Cathy S Cohen; David Gur
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 3.  Systematic review of the psychological consequences of false-positive screening mammograms.

Authors:  M Bond; T Pavey; K Welch; C Cooper; R Garside; S Dean; C Hyde
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 4.014

Review 4.  The psychological impact of mammographic screening. A systematic review.

Authors:  J Brett; C Bankhead; B Henderson; E Watson; J Austoker
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 3.894

5.  Women who are recalled for further investigation for breast screening: psychological consequences 3 years after recall and factors affecting re-attendance.

Authors:  J Brett; J Austoker
Journal:  J Public Health Med       Date:  2001-12

6.  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

7.  False-positive result and reattendance in the Ontario Breast Screening Program.

Authors:  A M Chiarelli; V Moravan; E Halapy; V Majpruz; V Mai; R K Tatla
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 2.136

8.  Absence of an anticipated racial disparity in interval breast cancer within a large health care organization.

Authors:  Garth H Rauscher; Firas Dabbous; Therese A Dolecek; Sarah M Friedewald; Katherine Tossas-Milligan; Teresita Macarol; W Thomas Summerfelt
Journal:  Ann Epidemiol       Date:  2017-09-20       Impact factor: 3.797

9.  Adapting the Breast Cancer Surgery Decision Quality Instrument for Lower Socioeconomic Status: Improving Readability, Acceptability, and Relevance.

Authors:  Marie-Anne Durand; Julia Song; Renata West Yen; Karen Sepucha; Mary C Politi; Shubhada Dhage; Kari Rosenkranz; Julie Margenthaler; Anna N A Tosteson; Eloise Crayton; Sherrill Jackson; Ann Bradley; A James O'Malley; Robert J Volk; Elissa Ozanne; Sanja Percac-Lima; Jocelyn Acosta; Nageen Mir; Peter Scalia; Abigail Ward; Glyn Elwyn
Journal:  MDM Policy Pract       Date:  2018-11-25

10.  Colorectal cancer screening program using FIT: quality of colonoscopy varies according to hospital type.

Authors:  Isabel Portillo; Isabel Idigoras; Isabel Bilbao; Eunate Arana-Arri; María José Fernández-Landa; Jose Luis Hurtado; Cristina Sarasaqueta; Luis Bujanda
Journal:  Endosc Int Open       Date:  2018-09-11
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.