American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol 164, 1107-1109, Copyright © 1995 by American Roentgen Ray Society

ARTICLES

Initial versus subsequent screening mammography: comparison of findings and their prognostic significance

SD Frankel, EA Sickles, BN Curpen, RA Sollitto, SH Ominsky and HB Galvin
Department of Radiology, University of California School of Medicine, San Francisco 94143, USA.

OBJECTIVE. The goal of this study was to compare findings on initial and subsequent screening mammograms to determine the prognostic significance of screening-detected abnormalities. MATERIALS AND METHODS. All 3386 abnormal examinations from a 9-year mammographic screening program were studied. An initial examination was defined as one for which there were no prior films available for comparison (even if one or more prior examinations had been performed); the remainder were called subsequent examinations. The principal mammographic feature of each abnormality was recorded, as well as whether a biopsy was performed. For all screening-detected cancers, we also determined several surrogate markers of prognosis (tumor size, presence of axillary lymph node metastasis, and tumor stage). These various parameters were analyzed as a function of initial versus subsequent screening. RESULTS. The frequency of abnormal examinations was more than 2 times greater for initial examinations (7%) than for subsequent examinations (3%). Only minor differences were noted between initial and subsequent screenings when comparing the principal mammographic features of the abnormalities. However, the number of cancers found per number of biopsies performed was significantly greater (p = .02) for subsequent screenings (41%) than for initial screenings (32%). Among the 333 cancers detected, tumor size was significantly smaller for subsequent screenings (p = .0076). Node-negative status and early tumor stage (stage 0 or 1) also were found more frequently for subsequently screened cancers, but these differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION. Substantially fewer abnormal screening interpretations are made when mammography has been performed previously and when the prior films are available for comparison. This results in cost savings and reduced morbidity at subsequent screening (no further work-up, less patient anxiety, fewer benign biopsies). Surrogate markers of prognosis also appear to be more favorable for cancers detected at subsequent screening.
CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. D. Rosenberg, B. C. Yankaskas, L. A. Abraham, E. A. Sickles, C. D. Lehman, B. M. Geller, P. A. Carney, K. Kerlikowske, D. S. M. Buist, D. L. Weaver, et al. Performance Benchmarks for Screening Mammography Radiology, October 1, 2006; 241(1): 55 - 66. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. S. Burnside, J. M. Park, J. P. Fine, and G. A. Sisney The Use of Batch Reading to Improve the Performance of Screening Mammography Am. J. Roentgenol., September 1, 2005; 185(3): 790 - 796. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. A. Sickles, D. L. Miglioretti, R. Ballard-Barbash, B. M. Geller, J. W. T. Leung, R. D. Rosenberg, R. Smith-Bindman, and B. C. Yankaskas Performance Benchmarks for Diagnostic Mammography Radiology, June 1, 2005; 235(3): 775 - 790. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. C. Yankaskas, S. H. Taplin, L. Ichikawa, B. M. Geller, R. D. Rosenberg, P. A. Carney, K. Kerlikowske, R. Ballard-Barbash, G. R. Cutter, and W. E. Barlow Association between Mammography Timing and Measures of Screening Performance in the United States Radiology, February 1, 2005; 234(2): 363 - 373. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				W. E. Barlow, C. Chi, P. A. Carney, S. H. Taplin, C. D'Orsi, G. Cutter, R. E. Hendrick, and J. G. Elmore Accuracy of Screening Mammography Interpretation by Characteristics of Radiologists J Natl Cancer Inst, December 15, 2004; 96(24): 1840 - 1850. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. Gur, J. H. Sumkin, and H. E. Rockette RESPONSE: Re: Changes in Breast Cancer Detection and Mammography Recall Rates After the Introduction of a Computer-Aided Detection System J Natl Cancer Inst, August 18, 2004; 96(16): 1261 - 1261. [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. Gur, J. H. Sumkin, L. A. Hardesty, and H. E. Rockette Re: Computer-Aided Detection of Breast Cancer: Has Promise Outstripped Performance? J Natl Cancer Inst, May 5, 2004; 96(9): 717 - 718. [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. E. M. Duijm, J. H. Groenewoud, J. H. C. L. Hendriks, and H. J. de Koning Independent Double Reading of Screening Mammograms in the Netherlands: Effect of Arbitration Following Reader Disagreements Radiology, May 1, 2004; 231(2): 564 - 570. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. S. Burnside, E. A. Sickles, R. E. Sohlich, and K. E. Dee Differential Value of Comparison with Previous Examinations in Diagnostic Versus Screening Mammography Am. J. Roentgenol., November 1, 2002; 179(5): 1173 - 1177. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. G. Elmore, D. L. Miglioretti, L. M. Reisch, M. B. Barton, W. Kreuter, C. L. Christiansen, and S. W. Fletcher Screening Mammograms by Community Radiologists: Variability in False-Positive Rates J Natl Cancer Inst, September 18, 2002; 94(18): 1373 - 1380. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. A. Sickles, D. E. Wolverton, and K. E. Dee Performance Parameters for Screening and Diagnostic Mammography: Specialist and General Radiologists Radiology, September 1, 2002; 224(3): 861 - 869. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. L. Christiansen, F. Wang, M. B. Barton, W. Kreuter, J. G. Elmore, A. E. Gelfand, and S. W. Fletcher Predicting the Cumulative Risk of False-Positive Mammograms J Natl Cancer Inst, October 18, 2000; 92(20): 1657 - 1666. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. K. Bobo, N. C. Lee, and S. F. Thames Findings From 752 081 Clinical Breast Examinations Reported to a National Screening Program From 1995 Through 1998 J Natl Cancer Inst, June 21, 2000; 92(12): 971 - 976. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. A. Feig Age-related Accuracy of Screening Mammography: How Should It Be Measured? Radiology, March 1, 2000; 214(3): 633 - 640. [Full Text]

				I. A. Olivotto, L. Kan, A. J. Coldman, E. Paci, D. Giorgi, M. R. del Turco, S. Roux, L. Markle, A. Diamond, E. A. Sickles, et al. False Positive Rate of Screening Mammography N. Engl. J. Med., August 20, 1998; 339(8): 560 - 564. [Full Text]