| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
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.
CiteULike 
Complore 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
Technorati What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  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]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
