| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
1
Department of Radiology, CB 7515, Mason Farm Rd., University of North Carolina
at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7515.
2
Department of Epidemiology, CB 7400, McGavran-Greenberg Hall, University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7400.
3
Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, CB 7295, University of North Carolina
at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7295.
OBJECTIVE. The performance of screening mammography is measured mainly by its sensitivity, positive predictive value, and cancer detection rate. Recall rates are also suggested as a surrogate measure. The main objective of this study was to measure the effect on sensitivity and positive predictive value as recall rates increase in the community practice of mammography.
MATERIALS AND METHODS. Mammography and pathology data are linked in the Carolina Mammography Registry, a population-based registry of screening mammography. Our mammography database is created from prospectively collected data from mammography facilities; the data include information on the woman and the imaging studies. Our pathology database is created from prospectively collected breast pathology data received from pathology sites and the Central Cancer Registry. Women in the registry who were 40 years old and older and who underwent screening mammography between January 1994 and June 1998 were included. "Recall rate" was defined as the percentage of screening studies for which further workup was recommended by the radiologist.
RESULTS. The study included 215,665 screening mammograms. The mean age of the women was 56 years. The recall rates of the average practice ranged from 1.9% to 13.4%. Sensitivity rose from a mean of 65% in the lowest recall rates to 80.2% at the highest level of recall rates. The positive predictive value of screening decreased from 7.2% in the lowest level of recall to 3.3% in the highest. As recall rates increased, sensitivity increased very little beyond a recall rate of 4.8%, and positive predictive value began decreasing significantly at a recall rate of 5.9%.
CONCLUSION. Practices with recall rates between 4.9% and 5.5% achieve the best trade-off of sensitivity and positive predictive value.
CiteULike 
Complore 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
Technorati What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  E. J. A. Bowles and B. M. Geller Best Ways to Provide Feedback to Radiologists on Mammography Performance Am. J. Roentgenol., July 1, 2009; 193(1): 157 - 164. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. H. Ahern and Y. Shen Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Mammography and Clinical Breast Examination Strategies: A Comparison with Current Guidelines Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., March 1, 2009; 18(3): 718 - 725. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P. Skaane, S. Hofvind, and A. Skjennald Randomized Trial of Screen-Film versus Full-Field Digital Mammography with Soft-Copy Reading in Population-based Screening Program: Follow-up and Final Results of Oslo II Study Radiology, September 1, 2007; 244(3): 708 - 717. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. G. Elmore and R. J. Brenner The More Eyes, the Better to See? From Double to Quadruple Reading of Screening Mammograms J Natl Cancer Inst, August 1, 2007; 99(15): 1141 - 1143. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. J. Schell, B. C. Yankaskas, R. Ballard-Barbash, B. F. Qaqish, W. E. Barlow, R. D. Rosenberg, and R. Smith-Bindman Evidence-based Target Recall Rates for Screening Mammography Radiology, June 1, 2007; 243(3): 681 - 689. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. A. Carney, L. A. Abraham, D. L. Miglioretti, K. R. Yabroff, E. A. Sickles, D. S. M. Buist, C. J. Kasales, B. M. Geller, R. D. Rosenberg, M. B. Dignan, et al. Factors Associated with Imaging and Procedural Events Used to Detect Breast Cancer After Screening Mammography Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2007; 188(2): 385 - 392. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. M. Ko, M. J. Nicholas, J. B. Mendel, and P. J. Slanetz Prospective assessment of computer-aided detection in interpretation of screening mammography. Am. J. Roentgenol., December 1, 2006; 187(6): 1483 - 1491. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. K. Lindfors, M. C. McGahan, C. J. Rosenquist, and G. S. Hurlock Computer-aided Detection of Breast Cancer: A Cost-effectiveness Study Radiology, June 1, 2006; 239(3): 710 - 717. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Hofvind, P. Skaane, B. Vitak, H. Wang, S. Thoresen, L. Eriksen, H. Bjorndal, A. Braaten, and N. Bjurstam Influence of Review Design on Percentages of Missed Interval Breast Cancers: Retrospective Study of Interval Cancers in a Population-based Screening Program Radiology, November 1, 2005; 237(2): 437 - 443. [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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. D. M. Otten, N. Karssemeijer, J. H. C. L. Hendriks, J. H. Groenewoud, J. Fracheboud, A. L. M. Verbeek, H. J. de Koning, and R. Holland Effect of Recall Rate on Earlier Screen Detection of Breast Cancers Based on the Dutch Performance Indicators J Natl Cancer Inst, May 18, 2005; 97(10): 748 - 754. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. A. Hardesty, A. H. Klym, B. E. Shindel, D. M. Chough, J. H. Sumkin, and D. Gur Is Maximum Positive Predictive Value a Good Indicator of an Optimal Screening Mammography Practice? Am. J. Roentgenol., May 1, 2005; 184(5): 1505 - 1507. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. Kerlikowske, R. Smith-Bindman, L. A. Abraham, C. D. Lehman, B. C. Yankaskas, R. Ballard-Barbash, W. E. Barlow, J. H. Voeks, B. M. Geller, P. A. Carney, et al. Breast Cancer Yield for Screening Mammographic Examinations with Recommendation for Short-Interval Follow-up Radiology, March 1, 2005; 234(3): 684 - 692. [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]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 I. Theberge, N. Hebert-Croteau, A. Langlois, D. Major, and J. Brisson Volume of screening mammography and performance in the Quebec population-based Breast Cancer Screening Program Can. Med. Assoc. J., January 18, 2005; 172(2): 195 - 199. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 K. Altundag, P. Morandi, O. Altundag, D. Gur, M. Kriege, C. T.M. Brekelmans, and J. G.M. Klijn MRI in Breast Cancer N. Engl. J. Med., November 18, 2004; 351(21): 2235 - 2236. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Skaane and A. Skjennald Screen-Film Mammography versus Full-Field Digital Mammography with Soft-Copy Reading: Randomized Trial in a Population-based Screening Program--The Oslo II Study Radiology, July 1, 2004; 232(1): 197 - 204. [Abstract] [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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. A. Helvie, L. Hadjiiski, E. Makariou, H.-P. Chan, N. Petrick, B. Sahiner, S.-C. B. Lo, M. Freedman, D. Adler, J. Bailey, et al. Sensitivity of Noncommercial Computer-aided Detection System for Mammographic Breast Cancer Detection: Pilot Clinical Trial Radiology, April 1, 2004; 231(1): 208 - 214. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. M. Ikeda, R. L. Birdwell, K. F. O'Shaughnessy, E. A. Sickles, and R. J. Brenner Computer-aided Detection Output on 172 Subtle Findings on Normal Mammograms Previously Obtained in Women with Breast Cancer Detected at Follow-Up Screening Mammography Radiology, March 1, 2004; 230(3): 811 - 819. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Gur, J. H. Sumkin, H. E. Rockette, M. Ganott, C. Hakim, L. Hardesty, W. R. Poller, R. Shah, and L. Wallace Changes in Breast Cancer Detection and Mammography Recall Rates After the Introduction of a Computer-Aided Detection System J Natl Cancer Inst, February 4, 2004; 96(3): 185 - 190. [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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. F. Brem, J. Baum, M. Lechner, S. Kaplan, S. Souders, L. G. Naul, and J. Hoffmeister Improvement in Sensitivity of Screening Mammography with Computer-Aided Detection: A Multiinstitutional Trial Am. J. Roentgenol., September 1, 2003; 181(3): 687 - 693. [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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. M. Hall, T. M. Kolb, J. Lichy, and J. H. Newhouse Screening Breast US [letter] * Dr Kolb and colleagues respond: Radiology, May 1, 2003; 227(2): 607 - 609. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P. A. Carney, D. L. Miglioretti, B. C. Yankaskas, K. Kerlikowske, R. Rosenberg, C. M. Rutter, B. M. Geller, L. A. Abraham, S. H. Taplin, M. Dignan, et al. Individual and Combined Effects of Age, Breast Density, and Hormone Replacement Therapy Use on the Accuracy of Screening Mammography Ann Intern Med, February 4, 2003; 138(3): 168 - 175. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. M. Hall and E. L. Rosen Malignancy in BI-RADS Category 3 Mammographic Lesions * Dr Rosen responds: Radiology, December 1, 2002; 225(3): 918 - 920. [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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. M. Hall Immediate Reporting of Screening Mammography Am. J. Roentgenol., April 1, 2002; 178(4): 1031 - 1032. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P. Shaffer, I. Khalkhali, and S. B. Haber Sestamibi Scanning of Breast Cancer J. Nucl. Med., January 1, 2002; 43(1): 125 - 126. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
