HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Sohlich, R. E. Articles by Dee, K. E. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Sohlich, R. E. Articles by Dee, K. E. Social Bookmarking                      What's this?

Interpreting Data from Audits When Screening and Diagnostic Mammography Outcomes Are Combined

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

OBJECTIVE. The objective of this study was to use mathematic models to aid mammography practices in interpreting outcomes data derived from a combination of screening and diagnostic examinations, and in interpreting diagnostic mammography outcomes data that are not segregated by indication for examination.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. We analyzed outcomes from 51,805 consecutive mammography examinations. Screening and diagnostic examinations were audited separately. Diagnostic examinations were audited by indication for examination. Extrapolating from our known mix of screening (79%) and diagnostic (21%) examinations, we determined expected combined outcomes for various mixes that might be encountered in clinical practice. Similarly, we determined the expected overall diagnostic mammography outcomes for various clinically relevant mixes of indications for examination.

RESULTS. Outcomes vary substantially depending on the mix of screening and diagnostic examinations performed. For example, expected outcomes for practices with screening—diagnostic mixes of 90-10% and 50-50% are, respectively: rate of abnormal findings, 6% versus 11%; rate of positive biopsy findings, 38% versus 42%; cancer detection rate, 10 per 1,000 versus 30 per 1,000; mean invasive cancer size, 14.4 mm versus 16.0 mm; nodal metastasis rate, 8% versus 11%; and rate of stage 0 and stage I cancers, 87% versus 82%. Diagnostic outcomes also vary substantially according to indication for examination, with a higher rate of abnormal findings, a higher rate of positive biopsy findings, and a larger mean invasive cancer size expected for mixes involving a high percentage of workups for palpable lesions.

CONCLUSION. When screening and diagnostic mammography outcomes are not segregated during auditing, and when diagnostic outcomes are not segregated by indication for examination, analysis of combined audit data should be based on extrapolations from known outcomes.

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

This article has been cited by other articles:

				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]

				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]

				W. A. Berg Rationale for a Trial of Screening Breast Ultrasound: American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN) 6666 Am. J. Roentgenol., May 1, 2003; 180(5): 1225 - 1228. [Full Text] [PDF]