Literature DB >> 33764423

Assessment of a Risk-Based Approach for Triaging Mammography Examinations During Periods of Reduced Capacity.

Diana L Miglioretti1,2, Michael C S Bissell1, Karla Kerlikowske3,4, Diana S M Buist2,5, Steven R Cummings6, Louise M Henderson7, Tracy Onega8, Ellen S O'Meara2, Garth H Rauscher9, Brian L Sprague10, Anna N A Tosteson11, Karen J Wernli2,5, Janie M Lee12,13, Christoph I Lee12,13,14.   

Abstract

Importance: Breast cancer screening, surveillance, and diagnostic imaging services were profoundly limited during the initial phase of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Objective: To develop a risk-based strategy for triaging mammograms during periods of decreased capacity. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based cohort study used data collected prospectively from mammography examinations performed in 2014 to 2019 at 92 radiology facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Participants included individuals undergoing mammography. Data were analyzed from August 10 to November 3, 2020. Exposures: Clinical indication for screening, breast symptoms, personal history of breast cancer, age, time since last mammogram/screening interval, family history of breast cancer, breast density, and history of high-risk breast lesion. Main Outcomes and Measures: Combinations of clinical indication, clinical history, and breast cancer risk factors that subdivided mammograms into risk groups according to their cancer detection rate were identified using classification and regression trees.
Results: The cohort included 898 415 individuals contributing 1 878 924 mammograms (mean [SD] age at mammogram, 58.6 [11.2] years) interpreted by 448 radiologists, with 1 722 820 mammograms in individuals without a personal history of breast cancer and 156 104 mammograms in individuals with a history of breast cancer. Most individuals were aged 50 to 69 years at imaging (1 113 174 mammograms [59.2%]), and 204 305 (11.2%) were Black, 206 087 (11.3%) were Asian or Pacific Islander, 126 677 (7.0%) were Hispanic or Latina, and 40 021 (2.2%) were another race/ethnicity or mixed race/ethnicity. Cancer detection rates varied widely based on clinical indication, breast symptoms, personal history of breast cancer, and age. The 12% of mammograms with very high (89.6 [95% CI, 82.3-97.5] to 122.3 [95% CI, 108.1-138.0] cancers detected per 1000 mammograms) or high (36.1 [95% CI, 33.1-39.3] to 47.5 [95% CI, 42.4-53.3] cancers detected per 1000 mammograms) cancer detection rates accounted for 55% of all detected cancers and included mammograms to evaluate an abnormal mammogram or breast lump in individuals of all ages regardless of breast cancer history, to evaluate breast symptoms other than lump in individuals with a breast cancer history or without a history but aged 60 years or older, and for short-interval follow-up in individuals aged 60 years or older without a breast cancer history. The 44.2% of mammograms with very low cancer detection rates accounted for 13.1% of detected cancers and included annual screening mammograms in individuals aged 50 to 69 years (3.8 [95% CI, 3.5-4.1] cancers detected per 1000 mammograms) and all screening mammograms in individuals younger than 50 years regardless of screening interval (2.8 [95% CI, 2.6-3.1] cancers detected per 1000 mammograms). Conclusions and Relevance: In this population-based cohort study, clinical indication and individual risk factors were associated with cancer detection and may be useful for prioritizing mammography in times and settings of decreased capacity.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33764423      PMCID: PMC7994953          DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.1974

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Netw Open        ISSN: 2574-3805


  14 in total

1.  Detection of ductal carcinoma in situ in women undergoing screening mammography.

Authors:  Virginia L Ernster; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; William E Barlow; Yingye Zheng; Donald L Weaver; Gary Cutter; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Robert Rosenberg; Patricia A Carney; Karla Kerlikowske; Stephen H Taplin; Nicole Urban; Berta M Geller
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2002-10-16       Impact factor: 13.506

2.  Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium: a national mammography screening and outcomes database.

Authors:  R Ballard-Barbash; S H Taplin; B C Yankaskas; V L Ernster; R D Rosenberg; P A Carney; W E Barlow; B M Geller; K Kerlikowske; B K Edwards; C F Lynch; N Urban; C A Chrvala; C R Key; S P Poplack; J K Worden; L G Kessler
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1997-10       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 3.  Towards risk-stratified colorectal cancer screening. Adding risk factors to the fecal immunochemical test: Evidence, evolution and expectations.

Authors:  Wessel van de Veerdonk; Sarah Hoeck; Marc Peeters; Guido Van Hal
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2019-06-04       Impact factor: 4.018

4.  Facility Variability in Examination Indication Among Women With Prior Breast Cancer: Implications and the Need for Standardization.

Authors:  Diana S M Buist; Laura Ichikawa; Karen J Wernli; Christoph I Lee; Louise M Henderson; Karla Kerlikowske; Erin J A Bowles; Diana L Miglioretti; Jennifer Specht; Garth H Rauscher; Brian L Sprague; Tracy Onega; Janie M Lee
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2020-01-28       Impact factor: 5.532

5.  Recommendations for Follow-up Colonoscopy After Polypectomy.

Authors:  Cecelia Zhang; Adam S Cifu; Amit Patel
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2020-12-01       Impact factor: 56.272

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

Review 7.  Population-based screening for cancer: hope and hype.

Authors:  Yiwey Shieh; Martin Eklund; George F Sawaya; William C Black; Barnett S Kramer; Laura J Esserman
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2016-04-13       Impact factor: 66.675

8.  Disruptions in preventive care: Mammograms during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Authors:  Hummy Song; Alon Bergman; Angela T Chen; Dan Ellis; Guy David; Ari B Friedman; Amelia M Bond; Julie M Bailey; Ronald Brooks; Aaron Smith-McLallen
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2020-11-04       Impact factor: 3.734

9.  Implications of polygenic risk-stratified screening for prostate cancer on overdiagnosis.

Authors:  Nora Pashayan; Stephen W Duffy; David E Neal; Freddie C Hamdy; Jenny L Donovan; Richard M Martin; Patricia Harrington; Sara Benlloch; Ali Amin Al Olama; Mitul Shah; Zsofia Kote-Jarai; Douglas F Easton; Rosalind Eeles; Paul D Pharoah
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2015-01-08       Impact factor: 8.822

10.  Changes in the Number of US Patients With Newly Identified Cancer Before and During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic.

Authors:  Harvey W Kaufman; Zhen Chen; Justin Niles; Yuri Fesko
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2020-08-03
View more
  3 in total

1.  Risk-based oral cancer screening - lessons to be learnt.

Authors:  Anil K D'Cruz; Richa Vaish
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2021-08       Impact factor: 65.011

2.  Nimble Approach: fast, adapting, calculating and ethically mindful approach to managing colorectal cancer screening programmes during a pandemic.

Authors:  Nancy N Baxter; Marcia Facey; Arlinda Ruco; Natalie A Baker; Anne Sorvari; Amina Benmessaoud; Catherine Dube; Linda Rabeneck; Jill Tinmouth
Journal:  BMJ Open Gastroenterol       Date:  2022-01

3.  Prioritizing breast imaging services during the COVID pandemic: A survey of breast imaging facilities within the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.

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

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.