Dataset Information

Analysis of Participant Factors That Affect the Diagnostic Performance of Screening Mammography: A Report of the Alliance for Breast Cancer Screening in Korea.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To analyze participant factors that affect the diagnostic performance of screening mammography.

Materials and methods

We enrolled 128756 cases from 10 hospitals between 2005 and 2010. We analyzed recall rate, cancer detection rate (CDR) per 1000 examinations, positive predictive value (PPV), sensitivity, specificity, false positive rate (FPR), and interval cancer rate (ICR) per 1000 negative examinations according to participant factors including age, breast density, and number of visit to the same institution, and adjusted for confounding variables.

Results

Increasing age improved recall rates (27.4% in 40's, 17.5% in 50's, 11.1% in 60's, and 8.6% in 70's), CDR (2.7, 3.2, 2.0, and 2.4), PPV (1.0, 1.8, 1.8, and 2.8%), sensitivity (81.3, 88.8, 90.3, and 94.7%), specificity (72.7, 82.7, 89.0, and 91.7%), and FPR (27.3, 17.3, 11.0, and 8.4%) (p < 0.05). Higher breast density impaired recall rates (4.0% in P1, 9.0% in P2, 28.9% in P3, and 27.8% in P4), PPV (3.3, 2.3, 1.2, and 1.3%), specificity (96.1, 91.2, 71.4, and 72.5%), and FPR (3.9, 8.9, 28.6, and 27.6%) (p < 0.001). It also increased CDR (1.3, 2.1, 3.3, and 3.6) and ICR (0.2, 0.3, 0.6, and 1.6) (p < 0.05). Successive visits to the same institution improved recall rates (20.9% for one visit, 10.7% for two visits, 7.7% for more than three visits), PPV (1.6, 2.8, and 2.7%), specificity (79.4, 89.6, and 92.5%), and FPR (20.6, 10.4, and 7.5%) (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Young age and dense breasts negatively affected diagnostic performance in mammography screening, whereas successive visits to the same institution had a positive effect. Examinee education for successive visits to the same institution would improve the diagnostic performance.

SUBMITTER: Kim YJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5447638 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jul-Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Analysis of Participant Factors That Affect the Diagnostic Performance of Screening Mammography: A Report of the Alliance for Breast Cancer Screening in Korea.

Kim Young Joong YJ Lee Eun Hye EH Jun Jae Kwan JK Shin Dong-Rock DR Park Young Mi YM Kim Hye-Won HW Kim Youme Y Kim Keum Won KW Lim Hyo Soon HS Park Jeong Seon JS Kim Hye Jung HJ Jo Hye-Mi HM

Korean journal of radiology 20170519 4

<h4>Objective</h4>To analyze participant factors that affect the diagnostic performance of screening mammography.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>We enrolled 128756 cases from 10 hospitals between 2005 and 2010. We analyzed recall rate, cancer detection rate (CDR) per 1000 examinations, positive predictive value (PPV), sensitivity, specificity, false positive rate (FPR), and interval cancer rate (ICR) per 1000 negative examinations according to participant factors including age, breast density, and ...[more]

PMID: 28670157

Similar Datasets

Project description:To develop criteria to identify thresholds for the minimally acceptable performance of physicians interpreting diagnostic mammography studies.In an institutional review board-approved HIPAA-compliant study, an Angoff approach was used to set criteria for identifying minimally acceptable interpretive performance for both workup after abnormal screening examinations and workup of a breast lump. Normative data from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) was used to help the expert radiologist identify the impact of cut points. Simulations, also using data from the BCSC, were used to estimate the expected clinical impact from the recommended performance thresholds.Final cut points for workup of abnormal screening examinations were as follows: sensitivity, less than 80%; specificity, less than 80% or greater than 95%; abnormal interpretation rate, less than 8% or greater than 25%; positive predictive value (PPV) of biopsy recommendation (PPV2), less than 15% or greater than 40%; PPV of biopsy performed (PPV3), less than 20% or greater than 45%; and cancer diagnosis rate, less than 20 per 1000 interpretations. Final cut points for workup of a breast lump were as follows: sensitivity, less than 85%; specificity, less than 83% or greater than 95%; abnormal interpretation rate, less than 10% or greater than 25%; PPV2, less than 25% or greater than 50%; PPV3, less than 30% or greater than 55%; and cancer diagnosis rate, less than 40 per 1000 interpretations. If underperforming physicians moved into the acceptable range after remedial training, the expected result would be (a) diagnosis of an additional 86 cancers per 100,000 women undergoing workup after screening examinations, with a reduction in the number of false-positive examinations by 1067 per 100,000 women undergoing this workup, and (b) diagnosis of an additional 335 cancers per 100,000 women undergoing workup of a breast lump, with a reduction in the number of false-positive examinations by 634 per 100,000 women undergoing this workup.Interpreting physicians who fall outside one or more of the identified cut points should be reviewed in the context of an overall assessment of all their performance measures and their specific practice setting to determine if remedial training is indicated.

Project description:Computer-aided detection identifies suspicious findings on mammograms to assist radiologists. Since the Food and Drug Administration approved the technology in 1998, it has been disseminated into practice, but its effect on the accuracy of interpretation is unclear.We determined the association between the use of computer-aided detection at mammography facilities and the performance of screening mammography from 1998 through 2002 at 43 facilities in three states. We had complete data for 222,135 women (a total of 429,345 mammograms), including 2351 women who received a diagnosis of breast cancer within 1 year after screening. We calculated the specificity, sensitivity, and positive predictive value of screening mammography with and without computer-aided detection, as well as the rates of biopsy and breast-cancer detection and the overall accuracy, measured as the area under the receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) curve.Seven facilities (16%) implemented computer-aided detection during the study period. Diagnostic specificity decreased from 90.2% before implementation to 87.2% after implementation (P<0.001), the positive predictive value decreased from 4.1% to 3.2% (P=0.01), and the rate of biopsy increased by 19.7% (P<0.001). The increase in sensitivity from 80.4% before implementation of computer-aided detection to 84.0% after implementation was not significant (P=0.32). The change in the cancer-detection rate (including invasive breast cancers and ductal carcinomas in situ) was not significant (4.15 cases per 1000 screening mammograms before implementation and 4.20 cases after implementation, P=0.90). Analyses of data from all 43 facilities showed that the use of computer-aided detection was associated with significantly lower overall accuracy than was nonuse (area under the ROC curve, 0.871 vs. 0.919; P=0.005).The use of computer-aided detection is associated with reduced accuracy of interpretation of screening mammograms. The increased rate of biopsy with the use of computer-aided detection is not clearly associated with improved detection of invasive breast cancer.

Project description:After the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved computer-aided detection (CAD) for mammography in 1998, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) provided increased payment in 2002, CAD technology disseminated rapidly. Despite sparse evidence that CAD improves accuracy of mammographic interpretations and costs over $400 million a year, CAD is currently used for most screening mammograms in the United States.To measure performance of digital screening mammography with and without CAD in US community practice.We compared the accuracy of digital screening mammography interpreted with (n = 495 818) vs without (n = 129 807) CAD from 2003 through 2009 in 323 973 women. Mammograms were interpreted by 271 radiologists from 66 facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Linkage with tumor registries identified 3159 breast cancers in 323 973 women within 1 year of the screening.Mammography performance (sensitivity, specificity, and screen-detected and interval cancers per 1000 women) was modeled using logistic regression with radiologist-specific random effects to account for correlation among examinations interpreted by the same radiologist, adjusting for patient age, race/ethnicity, time since prior mammogram, examination year, and registry. Conditional logistic regression was used to compare performance among 107 radiologists who interpreted mammograms both with and without CAD.Screening performance was not improved with CAD on any metric assessed. Mammography sensitivity was 85.3% (95% CI, 83.6%-86.9%) with and 87.3% (95% CI, 84.5%-89.7%) without CAD. Specificity was 91.6% (95% CI, 91.0%-92.2%) with and 91.4% (95% CI, 90.6%-92.0%) without CAD. There was no difference in cancer detection rate (4.1 in 1000 women screened with and without CAD). Computer-aided detection did not improve intraradiologist performance. Sensitivity was significantly decreased for mammograms interpreted with vs without CAD in the subset of radiologists who interpreted both with and without CAD (odds ratio, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.29-0.97).Computer-aided detection does not improve diagnostic accuracy of mammography. These results suggest that insurers pay more for CAD with no established benefit to women.

Dataset Information

Analysis of Participant Factors That Affect the Diagnostic Performance of Screening Mammography: A Report of the Alliance for Breast Cancer Screening in Korea.

Objective

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Analysis of Participant Factors That Affect the Diagnostic Performance of Screening Mammography: A Report of the Alliance for Breast Cancer Screening in Korea.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets