AJR F and L Medical Products: Radiation Protection & More
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Dee, K. E.
Right arrow Articles by Sickles, E. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Dee, K. E.
Right arrow Articles by Sickles, E. A.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Hotlight (NEW!)
Right arrow
What's Hotlight?
AJR 2001; 176:729-733
© American Roentgen Ray Society

Medical Audit of Diagnostic Mammography Examinations

Comparison with Screening Outcomes Obtained Concurrently

Katherine E. Dee1,2 and Edward A. Sickles1

1 Department of Radiology, Box 1667, University of California Medical Center, San Francisco, CA 94143-1667.
2 Present address: Department of Radiology, Box 357115, University of Washington Medical Center, 1959 N.E. Pacific St., Seattle, WA 98195.

OBJECTIVE. We performed a medical audit of our diagnostic mammography practice and compared clinical outcomes with those of screening mammography examinations performed concurrently.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. We analyzed 46,857 consecutive mammography examinations (10,007 diagnostic, 36,850 screening) from 1997 to 2000, including data on demographics, image interpretation, and biopsy (including size, nodal status, and cancer stage).

RESULTS. The mean age at diagnostic mammography was 55.8 years (mean age at screening mammogram, 59.1 years; p < 0.0001). Among patients who underwent diagnostic examinations, 14.7% had a strong or very strong family history of breast cancer (screening, 11.6%; p < 0.0001). Examination findings were interpreted as abnormal in 14.4% (screening, 5.2%; p < 0.0001). Biopsy was performed in 11.9% (screening, 1.4%; p < 0.0001). Forty-six percent of the biopsies were positive for malignancy (screening, 38%; p < 0.0001). The cancer detection rate was 55 per 1000 (screening, 5/1000; p < 0.0001). Of cancers found, 74.4% were stage 0 or I (screening, 89.3%; p < 0.0001), average size was 18.0 mm (screening, 12.9 mm; p < 0.0001), and axillary nodes were positive for malignancy in 19.9% of invasive cancers (screening, 6.3; p < 0.0001). Differences between diagnostic and screening outcomes were attributable predominantly to the subgroup of diagnostic examinations performed for evaluation of palpable masses.

CONCLUSION. Medical auditing of diagnostic mammography examinations yields substantially different results compared with those of screening examinations, including different patient demographics; higher number of positive biopsies; higher cancer detection rates; and larger, more advanced-stage cancers. Diagnostic and screening data should be segregated during auditing, or if this is not possible, analysis of combined results should be based on known differences between diagnostic and screening outcomes.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 JNCI J Natl Cancer InstHome page
S. L. Jackson, S. H. Taplin, E. A. Sickles, L. Abraham, W. E. Barlow, P. A. Carney, B. Geller, E. A. Berns, G. R. Cutter, and J. G. Elmore
Variability of Interpretive Accuracy Among Diagnostic Mammography Facilities
J Natl Cancer Inst, June 2, 2009; 101(11): 814 - 827.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
J. W. T. Leung and E. A. Sickles
Developing Asymmetry Identified on Mammography: Correlation with Imaging Outcome and Pathologic Findings
Am. J. Roentgenol., March 1, 2007; 188(3): 667 - 675.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
J. W. T. Leung, F. R. Margolin, K. E. Dee, R. P. Jacobs, S. R. Denny, and John. D. Schrumpf
Performance Parameters for Screening and Diagnostic Mammography in a Community Practice: Are There Differences Between Specialists and General Radiologists?
Am. J. Roentgenol., January 1, 2007; 188(1): 236 - 241.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
C. A. Beam, E. F. Conant, and E. A. Sickles
Correlation of Radiologist Rank as a Measure of Skill in Screening and Diagnostic Interpretation of Mammograms
Radiology, February 1, 2006; 238(2): 446 - 453.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
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]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
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]

Home page
 JNCI J Natl Cancer InstHome page
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]

Home page
 JAMAHome page
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]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
P. Crystal, S. D. Strano, S. Shcharynski, and M. J. Koretz
Using Sonography to Screen Women with Mammographically Dense Breasts
Am. J. Roentgenol., July 1, 2003; 181(1): 177 - 182.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
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]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
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]

Home page
 JNCI J Natl Cancer InstHome page
W. E. Barlow, C. D. Lehman, Y. Zheng, R. Ballard-Barbash, B. C. Yankaskas, G. R. Cutter, P. A. Carney, B. M. Geller, R. Rosenberg, K. Kerlikowske, et al.
Performance of Diagnostic Mammography for Women With Signs or Symptoms of Breast Cancer
J Natl Cancer Inst, August 7, 2002; 94(15): 1151 - 1159.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Med Decis MakingHome page
J. M. Boone, K. K. Lindfors, and J. A. Seibert
Determining Sensitivity of Mammography from Screening Data, Cancer Incidence, and Receiver-Operating Characteristic Curve Parameters
Med Decis Making, June 1, 2002; 22(3): 228 - 237.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
R. E. Sohlich, E. A. Sickles, E. S. Burnside, and K. E. Dee
Interpreting Data from Audits When Screening and Diagnostic Mammography Outcomes Are Combined
Am. J. Roentgenol., March 1, 2002; 178(3): 681 - 686.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2001 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.