American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol 165, 1373-1377, Copyright © 1995 by American Roentgen Ray Society

ARTICLES

Screening mammography in community practice: positive predictive value of abnormal findings and yield of follow-up diagnostic procedures

ML Brown, F Houn, EA Sickles and LG Kessler
Applied Research Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD 20892- 7344, USA.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to gather from 50 community mammography practices that were included in the National Survey of Mammography Facilities data concerning abnormal findings on screening mammograms to determine the frequency of various recommendations made for patients who had abnormal findings and to compare these recommendations with the frequency with which the procedures were actually performed. We also determined the positive predictive value of screening mammograms (the number of cancers detected per 100 abnormal findings) and the yield (the number of cancers detected per 100 procedures done) of various diagnostic procedures done because of abnormal findings. MATERIALS AND METHODS. We identified 1717 screening mammograms done in the last half of 1991 that had abnormal findings. Radiologic recommendations and follow-up procedures, including repeat standard (screening) mammography, additional mammographic views, sonography, clinical breast examination, needle aspiration, needle biopsy, and open biopsy, were identified for all of the cases from the radiologic records, and follow-up data were obtained from referring physicians. The positive predictive value and yield in the National Survey of Mammography Facilities were compared with data from the mammography screening practice of the University of California at San Francisco (UCSF), a facility noted for its clinical efficiency. RESULTS. We estimate that 11% of all screening mammograms resulted in a recommendation for further diagnostic procedures. These 1717 mammograms with abnormal findings led to the following recommendations and procedures: repeat standard (screening) mammography, 610 (recommended)/635 (performed); additional mammographic views, 785/707; sonography, 400/345; biopsy, 189/229; and needle aspiration, 21/51. More procedures were done than were recommended in some cases because the results of certain procedures often led to the performance of other, additional procedures. The positive predictive value for screening examinations with abnormal findings was 3.5%, and the yield for open biopsy was 21%. In the UCSF data base, the positive predictive value for examinations with abnormal findings was 10%, and the yield for open biopsy was 34%. CONCLUSION. The positive predictive value for examinations with abnormal findings and the yield for diagnostic procedures performed as a result of abnormal findings in 50 community radiologic facilities were higher than those reported in some earlier studies, a fact that raised concern about the induced cost of screening mammography. However, these values were low compared with those in the UCSF data base. This fact was particularly true of repeat standard (screening) mammography.
CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S. E. Pories, D. Zurakowski, R. Roy, C. C. Lamb, S. Raza, A. Exarhopoulos, R. G. Scheib, S. Schumer, C. Lenahan, V. Borges, et al. Urinary Metalloproteinases: Noninvasive Biomarkers for Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., May 1, 2008; 17(5): 1034 - 1042. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. Sahiner, H.-P. Chan, M. A. Roubidoux, L. M. Hadjiiski, M. A. Helvie, C. Paramagul, J. Bailey, A. V. Nees, and C. Blane Malignant and Benign Breast Masses on 3D US Volumetric Images: Effect of Computer-aided Diagnosis on Radiologist Accuracy Radiology, March 1, 2007; 242(3): 716 - 724. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. S. Burnside, D. L. Rubin, J. P. Fine, R. D. Shachter, G. A. Sisney, and W. K. Leung Bayesian Network to Predict Breast Cancer Risk of Mammographic Microcalcifications and Reduce Number of Benign Biopsy Results: Initial Experience Radiology, September 1, 2006; 240(3): 666 - 673. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. Blanchard, J. A. Colbert, D. B. Kopans, R. Moore, E. F. Halpern, K. S. Hughes, B. L. Smith, K. K. Tanabe, and J. S. Michaelson Long-term Risk of False-Positive Screening Results and Subsequent Biopsy as a Function of Mammography Use. Radiology, August 1, 2006; 240(2): 335 - 342. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. G. Elmore, K. Armstrong, C. D. Lehman, and S. W. Fletcher Screening for Breast Cancer JAMA, March 9, 2005; 293(10): 1245 - 1256. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. B. Mainiero, A. Goldkamp, E. Lazarus, L. Livingston, S. L. Koelliker, B. Schepps, and W. W. Mayo-Smith Characterization of Breast Masses With Sonography: Can Biopsy of Some Solid Masses Be Deferred? J. Ultrasound Med., February 1, 2005; 24(2): 161 - 167. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. P. Poplack, P. A. Carney, J. E. Weiss, L. Titus-Ernstoff, M. E. Goodrich, and A. N. A. Tosteson Screening Mammography: Costs and Use of Screening-related Services Radiology, January 1, 2005; 234(1): 79 - 85. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. A. Carney, J. G. Elmore, L. A. Abraham, M. S. Gerrity, R. E. Hendrick, S. H. Taplin, W. E. Barlow, G. R. Cutter, S. P. Poplack, and C. J. D'Orsi Radiologist Uncertainty and the Interpretation of Screening Med Decis Making, June 1, 2004; 24(3): 255 - 264. [Abstract] [PDF]

				K. R. Yabroff, N. Breen, S. W. Vernon, H. I. Meissner, A. N. Freedman, and R. Ballard-Barbash What Factors Are Associated with Diagnostic Follow-Up after Abnormal Mammograms? Findings from a U.S. National Survey Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., May 1, 2004; 13(5): 723 - 732. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. P. Poplack, K. D. Paulsen, A. Hartov, P. M. Meaney, B. W. Pogue, T. D. Tosteson, M. R. Grove, S. K. Soho, and W. A. Wells Electromagnetic Breast Imaging: Average Tissue Property Values in Women with Negative Clinical Findings Radiology, May 1, 2004; 231(2): 571 - 580. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. B. Barton, D. S. Morley, S. Moore, J. D. Allen, K. P. Kleinman, K. M. Emmons, and S. W. Fletcher Decreasing Women's Anxieties After Abnormal Mammograms: A Controlled Trial J Natl Cancer Inst, April 7, 2004; 96(7): 529 - 538. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. Smith-Bindman, P. W. Chu, D. L. Miglioretti, E. A. Sickles, R. Blanks, R. Ballard-Barbash, J. K. Bobo, N. C. Lee, M. G. Wallis, J. Patnick, et al. Comparison of Screening Mammography in the United States and the United Kingdom JAMA, October 22, 2003; 290(16): 2129 - 2137. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. G. Elmore, C. Y. Nakano, T. D. Koepsell, L. M. Desnick, C. J. D'Orsi, and D. F. Ransohoff International Variation in Screening Mammography Interpretations in Community-Based Programs J Natl Cancer Inst, September 17, 2003; 95(18): 1384 - 1393. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. R. Yabroff, K. S. Washington, A. Leader, E. Neilson, and J. Mandelblatt Is the Promise of Cancer-Screening Programs Being Compromised? Quality of Follow-Up Care after Abnormal Screening Results Med Care Res Rev, September 1, 2003; 60(3): 294 - 331. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. W. Fletcher and J. G. Elmore Mammographic Screening for Breast Cancer N. Engl. J. Med., April 24, 2003; 348(17): 1672 - 1680. [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Yasmeen, P. S. Romano, M. Pettinger, R. T. Chlebowski, J. A. Robbins, D. S. Lane, and S. L. Hendrix Frequency and Predictive Value of a Mammographic Recommendation for Short-Interval Follow-Up J Natl Cancer Inst, March 19, 2003; 95(6): 429 - 436. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C.-M. Chen, Y.-H. Chou, K.-C. Han, G.-S. Hung, C.-M. Tiu, H.-J. Chiou, and S.-Y. Chiou Breast Lesions on Sonograms: Computer-aided Diagnosis with Nearly Setting-Independent Features and Artificial Neural Networks Radiology, February 1, 2003; 226(2): 504 - 514. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. C. ROQUE and T. C.S.S. ANDRE Mammography and Computerized Decision Systems: A Review Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci., December 1, 2002; 980(1): 83 - 94. [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]

				K. K. Lindfors, J. O’Connor, and R. A. Parker False-Positive Screening Mammograms: Effect of Immediate versus Later Work-up on Patient Stress Radiology, January 1, 2001; 218(1): 247 - 253. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				K. Kerlikowske, P. A. Carney, B. Geller, M. T. Mandelson, S. H. Taplin, K. Malvin, V. Ernster, N. Urban, G. Cutter, R. Rosenberg, et al. Performance of Screening Mammography among Women with and without a First-Degree Relative with Breast Cancer Ann Intern Med, December 5, 2000; 133(11): 855 - 863. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. P. Poplack, A. N. Tosteson, M. R. Grove, W. A. Wells, and P. A. Carney Mammography in 53,803 Women from the New Hampshire Mammography Network Radiology, December 1, 2000; 217(3): 832 - 840. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				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]

				R. E. Anderson Billions for Defense: The Pervasive Nature of Defensive Medicine Arch Intern Med, November 8, 1999; 159(20): 2399 - 2402. [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. W. Fletcher False-Positive Screening Mammograms: Good News, but More To Do Ann Intern Med, July 6, 1999; 131(1): 60 - 62. [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. G. Elmore, M. B. Barton, V. M. Moceri, S. Polk, P. J. Arena, and S. W. Fletcher Ten-Year Risk of False Positive Screening Mammograms and Clinical Breast Examinations N. Engl. J. Med., April 16, 1998; 338(16): 1089 - 1096. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. Seoudi, J. Mortier, R. Basile, and E. Curletti Stereotactic Core Needle Biopsy of Nonpalpable Breast Lesions: Initial Experience With a Promising Technique Arch Surg, April 1, 1998; 133(4): 366 - 372. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]