Provider’s volume and quality of breast cancer detection and treatment

Hébert‐Croteau, Nicole; Roberge, Danièle; Brisson, Jacques

doi:10.1007/s10549-006-9439-x

Cited by 11 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 84 publications

(193 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The comparison of responses from both sub‐groups for the Likert ratings of difficulty making a ‘normal’ decision and the assessment of cases on suitability for a single reading strategy, demonstrated similar responses. Although recent studies suggested that readers' performance in reading screening mammograms increased with the number of mammograms read per year, this was not observed in this study. It appears that responses in this study were not driven by reader experience, which was defined by reading volume.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 94%

Classification of normal screening mammograms is strongly influenced by perceived mammographic breast density

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction To investigate how breast screen readers classify normal screening cases using descriptors of normal mammographic features and to assess test cases for suitability for a single reading strategy. Methods Fifteen breast screen readers interpreted a test set of 29 normal screening cases and classified them by firstly rating their perceived difficulty to reach a ‘normal’ decision, secondly identifying the cases' salient normal mammographic features and thirdly assessing the cases' suitability for a single reading strategy. Results The relationship between the perceived difficulty in making ‘normal’ decisions and the normal mammographic features was investigated. Regular ductal pattern (Tb = −0.439, P = 0.001), uniform density (Tb = −0.527, P < 0.001), non‐dense breasts (Tb = −0.736, P < 0.001), symmetrical mammographic features (Tb = −0.474, P = 0.001) and overlapped density (Tb = 0.630, P < 0.001) had a moderate to strong correlation with the difficulty to make ‘normal’ decisions. Cases with regular ductal pattern (Tb = 0.447, P = 0.002), uniform density (Tb = 0.550, P < 0.001), non‐dense breasts (Tb = 0.748, P < 0.001) and symmetrical mammographic features (Tb = 0.460, P = 0.001) were considered to be more suitable for single reading, whereas cases with overlapped density were not (Tb = −0.679, P < 0.001). Conclusion The findings suggest that perceived mammographic breast density has a major influence on the difficulty for readers to classify cases as normal and hence their suitability for single reading.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 94%

Classification of normal screening mammograms is strongly influenced by perceived mammographic breast density

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[4][5][6] Previous studies based on high-risk procedures have discovered that operative or in-hospital mortality rates are lower in high-volume hospitals. [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] The differences for post-RFA morbidity and mortality between high-volume and low-volume hospitals may be limited because of the low complication rates attributable to RFA. The influence of hospital volume on late survival cannot be fully explained using differences in post-RFA morbidity and mortality and should be attributed to other factors.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…7,8 The relation between tumor volume and outcome has been widely discussed in past decades, and previous studies have verified this relation in various procedures. [9][10][11] For procedures that depend greatly on technique, such as cancer surgery (including hepatectomy for HCC), hospital volume not only has been associated with decreased treatment-related mortality and complication rates, [12][13][14][15][16][17][18] it also has been associated with better long-term survival rates. [19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26] A successful percutaneous RFA for HCC relies heavily on physician technique, because the procedure requires the insertion of a needle electrode directly into the lesion using imaging guidance (ultrasound or computed tomography).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hospital volume of percutaneous radiofrequency ablation is closely associated with treatment outcomes for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma

Shao

Kuo

et al. 2012

Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND: Hospital volume for several major operations is associated with treatment outcomes. In this study, the authors explored the influence of hospital radiofrequency ablation (RFA) volume on the prognosis of patients who received RFA for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: The authors searched for all patients who were diagnosed with stage I or stage II HCC from 2004 to 2006 and who received RFA as first-line therapy in a population-based cohort. Overall survival (OS) and liver cancer-specific survival (CSS) were compared according to hospital volume. A Cox proportional hazards model was used for multivariate analysis. RESULTS: In total, 661 patients received first-line RFA for stage I and II HCC in 28 hospitals. Among these, there were 480 patients (72.6%) in the high-volume group (those who received RFA at hospitals that treated >10 first-line patients per year), and there were 181 patients (27.4%) in the low-volume group (those who received RFA at hospitals that treated 10 first-line patients per year). The sex, age, stage, tumor size, and year of diagnosis for patients in the 2 groups did not differ significantly. Patients in the high-volume group demonstrated significantly longer OS and CSS than those in the low-volume group (5-year OS rate, 58.7% vs 47.2%; P ¼ .001; 5-year CSS rate, 67.1% vs 57.1%; P ¼ .009). After adjusting for covariates, high-volume hospitals remained an independent predictor of longer OS (hazard ratio, 0.57; P < .001) and CSS (hazard ratio, 0.57; P ¼ .003). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who received first-line RFA for HCC in high-volume hospitals demonstrated better survival outcomes.

show abstract

“…The Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) registries and Statistical mammography performance and volume, although inconsistent, generally suggest that higher-volume readers have lower false-positive rates (FPRs); findings on sensitivity are mixed (3). To address these gaps between observed and optimal screening accuracy (1), previous studies examined the relationship between interpretive volume and screening and diagnostic performance (4,5).…”

Section: Subjectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Radiologists’ Diagnostic Work-up Volume on Interpretive Performance

Buist¹,

Anderson²,

Smith³

et al. 2014

Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose:To examine radiologists' screening performance in relation to the number of diagnostic work-ups performed after abnormal findings are discovered at screening mammography by the same radiologist or by different radiologists. Materials andMethods:In an institutional review board-approved HIPAA-compliant study, the authors linked 651 671 screening mammograms interpreted from 2002 to 2006 by 96 radiologists in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium to cancer registries (standard of reference) to evaluate the performance of screening mammography (sensitivity, false-positive rate [FPR], and cancer detection rate [CDR]). Logistic regression was used to assess the association between the volume of recalled screening mammograms ("own" mammograms, where the radiologist who interpreted the diagnostic image was the same radiologist who had interpreted the screening image, and "any" mammograms, where the radiologist who interpreted the diagnostic image may or may not have been the radiologist who interpreted the screening image) and screening performance and whether the association between total annual volume and performance differed according to the volume of diagnostic work-up. Results:Annually, 38% of radiologists performed the diagnostic work-up for 25 or fewer of their own recalled screening mammograms, 24% performed the work-up for 0-50, and 39% performed the work-up for more than 50. For the work-up of recalled screening mammograms from any radiologist, 24% of radiologists performed the work-up for 0-50 mammograms, 32% performed the work-up for 51-125, and 44% performed the work-up for more than 125. With increasing numbers of radiologist workups for their own recalled mammograms, the sensitivity (P = .039), FPR (P = .004), and CDR (P , .001) of screening mammography increased, yielding a stepped increase in women recalled per cancer detected from 17.4 for 25 or fewer mammograms to 24.6 for more than 50 mammograms. Increases in work-ups for any radiologist yielded significant increases in FPR (P = .011) and CDR (P = .001) and a nonsignificant increase in sensitivity (P = .15). Radiologists with a lower annual volume of any work-ups had consistently lower FPR, sensitivity, and CDR at all annual interpretive volumes. Conclusion:These findings support the hypothesis that radiologists may improve their screening performance by performing the diagnostic work-up for their own recalled screening mammograms and directly receiving feedback afforded by means of the outcomes associated with their initial decision to recall. Arranging for radiologists to work up a minimum number of their own recalled cases could improve screening performance but would need systems to facilitate this workflow.q RSNA, 2014

show abstract

Provider’s volume and quality of breast cancer detection and treatment

Cited by 11 publications

References 84 publications

Classification of normal screening mammograms is strongly influenced by perceived mammographic breast density

Classification of normal screening mammograms is strongly influenced by perceived mammographic breast density

Hospital volume of percutaneous radiofrequency ablation is closely associated with treatment outcomes for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma

Effect of Radiologists’ Diagnostic Work-up Volume on Interpretive Performance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About