Age-related Accuracy of Screening Mammography: How Should It Be Measured?

Feig, Stephen A.

doi:10.1148/radiology.214.3.r00mr45633

Cited by 30 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Specifically, since cancer detection rates are higher in prevalence screening than in incidence screening [16], differences in screening outcomes might be due to differences in the proportions of prevalence and incidence screening rather than by the methodology of screening without or with CAD. However, in our study, the proportion of prevalence screening varied significantly in the pre-CAD group compared with the CAD group (13.6% vs 7.1%, respectively; p < 0.0005).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of Computer-Aided Detection in a Regional Screening Mammography Program

Cupples¹,

Cunningham²,

Reynolds³

2005

American Journal of Roentgenology

136

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Increased detection rate, younger age at diagnosis, and significantly earlier stage of invasive cancer detection are consistent with a positive screening impact of CAD. Audit results were positive but generally not statistically significant due to sample size limitations. Our findings support the hypothesis that screening with CAD significantly improves detection of the specific cancer morphologies that CAD algorithms were designed to detect.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of Computer-Aided Detection in a Regional Screening Mammography Program

Cupples¹,

Cunningham²,

Reynolds³

2005

American Journal of Roentgenology

136

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The younger women most likely had fewer prior exams because they had undergone screening for a shorter time period than the older women. As younger age has been shown to be associated with higher recall rates [16], we controlled for age in our statistical analysis. The recall rate reduction in the multiple prior group relative to the single prior group remained statistically significant after controlling for age, confirming that the number of priors compared is an independent predictor of recall.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving Screening Mammography Outcomes Through Comparison With Multiple Prior Mammograms

Hayward

Ray

Wisner

et al. 2016

American Journal of Roentgenology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To evaluate the impact of comparison with multiple prior examinations on screening mammography outcomes relative to comparison with a single prior. Materials and Methods Following institutional review board approval, we retrospectively analyzed 46,288 consecutive screening mammograms in 22,792 women at our institution. We subdivided these examinations into three groups: those interpreted without priors, with one prior, and with two or more priors. For each group we determined the recall rate. We also calculated the positive predictive value of recall (PPV1) and cancer detection rate (CDR) for the single and multiple prior groups. Generalized estimating equations with logistic link function were used to determine the relative odds of recall as a function of the number of comparisons with adjustment for age as a confounding variable. Fisher’s exact test was performed to compare the PPV1 and CDR in the different cohorts. Results Recall rates for mammograms interpreted with no priors, one prior and two or more priors were 16.6%, 7.8%, and 6.3%, respectively. After adjusting for age, the odds ratio of recall for the multiple prior relative to the single prior group was 0.864 (95% CI: 0.776, 0.962; p=0.0074). There were also statistically significant increases in PPV1 of 0.05 (p=0.0009) and CDR of 2.3/1000 (p=0.0481) for mammograms compared with multiple priors relative to a single prior. Conclusions Comparison with two or more prior mammograms resulted in a statistically significant reduction in the screening mammography recall rate and increases in the CDR and PPV1 relative to comparison with a single prior.

show abstract

“…The use of data from subsequent (incidence) screening alone is preferred, but combined data from prevalence and incidence screenings may also be used. Such an assessment will indicate that screening of women aged 40 to 49 years will detect at least 63% to 80% as many cancers, require 1.7 times as many diagnostic imaging procedures, and result in 1.3 to 1.4 times as many false-positive biopsy results for cancers detected 48 (Table 13-6).…”

Section: Is Screen-detected Ductal Carcinoma In Situ a Real Cancer?mentioning

confidence: 99%