| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
1 Department of Radiology, Box 1667, University of California School of
Medicine, San Francisco, CA 94143-1667.
2 Present address: Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin Medical
School, E3/311 Clinical Science Center, 600 Highland Ave., Madison, WI
53792-3252.
3 Department of Radiology, Box 357115, University of Washington Medical Center,
1959 N.E. Pacific St., Seattle, WA 98195.
OBJECTIVE. The purpose of our study was to analyze the differences in clinical outcomes of diagnostic and screening mammography depending on whether comparison is made with previous examinations.
MATERIALS AND METHODS. We analyzed 48,281 consecutive mammography examinations for which previous mammography (9825 diagnostic, 38,456 screening) had been performed between 1997 and 2001, collecting data on demographics, whether comparison actually was made with previous examinations, abnormal findings (recall for screening mammography or biopsy recommendation for diagnostic mammography), biopsy yield of cancer, cancer detection rate, size of invasive cancers, axillary nodal status, and cancer stage.
RESULTS. Comparison with previous examinations in the incidence screening setting decreases the recall rate from 4.9% to 3.8% (p < 0.0001) but does not significantly affect the biopsy yield (40-44%, p = 0.56) or the cancer detection rate (5.5-5.2/1000, p = 0.87). In the diagnostic setting, comparison with previous examinations increases the biopsy-recommended rate from 4.3% to 9.4% (p < 0.0001), the biopsy yield from 38% to 51% (p = 0.12), and the overall cancer detection rate from 11/1000 to 39/1000 (p < 0.0001). Comparison with previous examinations is not associated with a significant difference in mean tumor size. However, it is associated with a significant decrease in the frequency of axillary node metastasis and the cancer stage for screening mammography, but not for diagnostic mammography.
CONCLUSION. For screening mammography, comparison with previous examinations significantly decreases false-positive but not true-positive findings and permits detection of cancers at an earlier stage. For diagnostic mammography, comparison with previous examinations increases true-positive findings.
CiteULike 
Complore 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
Technorati What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  D. L. Miglioretti, R. Smith-Bindman, L. Abraham, R. J. Brenner, P. A. Carney, E. J. A. Bowles, D. S. M. Buist, and J. G. Elmore Radiologist Characteristics Associated With Interpretive Performance of Diagnostic Mammography J Natl Cancer Inst, December 19, 2007; 99(24): 1854 - 1863. [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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. A. J. Roelofs, N. Karssemeijer, N. Wedekind, C. Beck, S. van Woudenberg, P. R. Snoeren, J. H. C. L. Hendriks, M. Rosselli del Turco, N. Bjurstam, H. Junkermann, et al. Importance of Comparison of Current and Prior Mammograms in Breast Cancer Screening Radiology, January 1, 2007; 242(1): 70 - 77. [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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. Horsch, M. L. Giger, C. J. Vyborny, L. Lan, E. B. Mendelson, and R. E. Hendrick Classification of Breast Lesions with Multimodality Computer-aided Diagnosis: Observer Study Results on an Independent Clinical Data Set. Radiology, August 1, 2006; 240(2): 357 - 368. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. Hadjiiski, B. Sahiner, M. A. Helvie, H.-P. Chan, M. A. Roubidoux, C. Paramagul, C. Blane, N. Petrick, J. Bailey, K. Klein, et al. Breast Masses: Computer-aided Diagnosis with Serial Mammograms Radiology, August 1, 2006; 240(2): 343 - 356. [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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. Hadjiiski, H.-P. Chan, B. Sahiner, M. A. Helvie, M. A. Roubidoux, C. Blane, C. Paramagul, N. Petrick, J. Bailey, K. Klein, et al. Improvement in Radiologists' Characterization of Malignant and Benign Breast Masses on Serial Mammograms with Computer-aided Diagnosis: An ROC Study Radiology, October 1, 2004; 233(1): 255 - 265. [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]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. Kerlikowske, R. Smith-Bindman, and E. A. Sickles Short-Interval Follow-Up Mammography: Are We Doing the Right Thing? J Natl Cancer Inst, March 19, 2003; 95(6): 418 - 419. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. G. Elmore, D. L. Miglioretti, and P. A. Carney Does Practice Make Perfect When Interpreting Mammography? Part II J Natl Cancer Inst, February 19, 2003; 95(4): 250 - 252. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
