Recommendations for Post-Polypectomy Surveillance in Community Practice

After colon cancer screening, large numbers of persons discovered with colon polyps may receive post-polypectomy surveillance with multiple colonoscopy examinations over time. Decisions about surveillance interval are based in part on polyp size, histology, and number

A Prospective Assessment of Racial/Ethnic Differences in Future Mammography Behavior among Women Who had Early Mammography

29% of women aged 30-39 report having had a mammogram though sensitivity and specificity are low. We investigate racial/ethnic differences in future mammography behavior among women who had a baseline screening mammogram prior to age 40

Evidence-based Target Recall Rates for Screening Mammography 1

PURPOSE: To retrospectively identify target recall rates for screening mammography on the basis of how sensitivity shifts with recall rate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study group included 1 872 687 subsequent and 171 104 first screening mammograms from 1996 to 2001 from 172 and 139 facilities, respectively, in six sites of the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Institutional review board (IRB) approval was obtained from each site. Informed consent requirements of the IRBs were followed. The study was HIPAA compliant. Recall rate was defined as the percentage of screening studies for which further work-up was recommended by the radiologist. Sensitivity was defined as the proportion of cancers that were detected at screening mammography. Piecewise linear regression was used to model sensitivity as a function of recall rate. This model allows detection of critical recall rates in which significant changes (shifts) occurred in the rates that sensitivity increased with increasing recall rate. Rates were interpreted as number of additional work-ups per additional cancer detected (AW/ACD) or, in other words, the estimated number of additional women needed to be recalled at a given rate to detect one additional cancer. RESULTS: For first mammograms, a single shift in the estimated AW/ACD rate occurred at a recall rate of 10.0%, with the rate jumping dramatically from 35 to 172. For subsequent mammograms, four shifts were identified. At a recall rate of 6.7%, the estimated AW/ACD increased from 80 to 132, which rendered it the highest desirable target recall rate. At a recall rate of 12.3%, the estimated AW/ACD was 304, which suggests little benefit for any higher recall rate. CONCLUSION: Recall rates of 10.0% for first and 6.7% for subsequent mammograms are recommended targets on the basis of their AW/ACD rates (less than 100)

Performance Benchmarks for Diagnostic Mammography

PURPOSE: To evaluate a range of performance parameters pertinent to the comprehensive auditing of diagnostic mammography examinations, and to derive performance benchmarks therefrom, by pooling data collected from large numbers of patients and radiologists that are likely to be representative of mammography practice in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval was met, informed consent was not required, and this study was Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliant. Six mammography registries contributed data to the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC), providing patient demographic and clinical information, mammogram interpretation data, and biopsy results from defined population-based catchment areas. The study involved 151 mammography facilities and 646 interpreting radiologists. The study population included women 18 years of age or older who underwent at least one diagnostic mammography examination between 1996 and 2001. Collected data were used to derive mean performance parameter values, including abnormal interpretation rate, positive predictive value (for abnormal interpretation, biopsy recommended, and biopsy performed), cancer diagnosis rate, invasive cancer size, and the percentages of minimal cancers, axillary node-negative invasive cancers, and stage 0 and I cancers. Additional benchmarks were derived for these performance parameters, including 10th, 25th, 50th (median), 75th, and 90th percentile values. RESULTS: The study involved 332,926 diagnostic mammography examinations. Mean performance parameter values were abnormal interpretation rate, 8.0%; positive predictive value for abnormal interpretation, 31.4%; positive predictive value for biopsy recommended, 31.5%; positive predictive value for biopsy performed, 39.5%; cancer diagnosis rate, 25.3 per 1000 examinations; invasive cancer size, 20.2 mm; percentage of minimal cancers, 42.0%; percentage of axillary node-negative invasive cancers, 73.6%; and percentage of stage 0 and I cancers, 62.4%. CONCLUSION: The presented BCSC outcomes data and performance benchmarks may be used by mammography facilities and individual radiologists to evaluate their own performance for diagnostic mammography as determined by means of periodic comprehensive audits

Positive Predictive Value of Mammography: Comparison of Interpretations of Screening and Diagnostic Images by the Same Radiologist and by Different Radiologists

The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether the positive predictive value (PPV) after a recommendation for biopsy differs when one as opposed to more than one radiologist performs the workup after abnormal findings are discovered at screening mammography

Are there racial/ethnic disparities among women younger than 40 undergoing mammography?

While the probability of a woman developing invasive breast cancer at age <40 is low (<1%), mammography use reported among younger women (age <40) is substantial, and varies by race/ethnicity. Little detail is known about mammography use among women aged <40, particularly by race/ethnicity. We describe racial/ethnic differences in: (1) mammography indication after considering underlying risk factors (breast symptoms and family history); (2) follow-up recommendations, and (3) mammography outcomes for first mammograms in women aged <40. These 1996–2005 Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium data are prospectively pooled from seven U.S. mammography registries. Our community-based sample included 99,615 women aged 18–39 who self-reported race/ethnicity and presented for a first mammogram (screening or diagnostic) with no history of breast cancer. Multivariable analyses controlled for registry site, age, family history of breast cancer, symptoms, and exam year. Overall, 73.6% of the women in our sample were seen for a screening mammogram. Following screening mammography, African American (AA) women were more likely than white women to be recommended for additional workup [relative risk (RR): 1.15 (95% CI: 1.07–1.23)]. Following diagnostic mammography, AA [RR: 1.30 (95% CI: 1.17–1.44)] and Asian [RR: 1.44 (95% CI: 1.26–1.64)] women were more likely to be recommended for biopsy, fine-needle aspiration, or surgical consultation. Depending on race/ethnicity, and considering the rate of true positive to total first screening mammograms of younger women, a women has a likelihood of a true positive of 1 in 363–1,122; she has a likelihood of a false positive of 1 in 7–10. This study of community-based practice found racial/ethnic variability in mammography indication, recommendations, and outcomes among women undergoing first mammography before 40. These findings highlight important areas for future research to understand the motivating factors for these practice patterns and the implications of early mammography use

Factors Facilitating Acceptable Mammography Services for Women with Disabilities

Prior research has described general barriers to breast cancer screening for women with disabilities (WWD). We explored specific accommodations described as necessary by WWD who have accessed screening services, and the presence of such accommodations in community based screening programs

Association between mammographic density and basal-like and luminal A breast cancer subtypes

Abstract: Introduction: Mammographic density is a strong risk factor for breast cancer overall, but few studies have examined the association between mammographic density and specific subtypes of breast cancer, especially aggressive basal-like breast cancers. Because basal-like breast cancers are less frequently screen-detected, it is important to understand how mammographic density relates to risk of basal-like breast cancer. Methods: We estimated associations between mammographic density and breast cancer risk according to breast cancer subtype. Cases and controls were participants in the Carolina Breast Cancer Study (CBCS) who also had mammograms recorded in the Carolina Mammography Registry (CMR). A total of 491 cases had mammograms within five years prior to and one year after diagnosis and 528 controls had screening or diagnostic mammograms close to the dates of selection into CBCS. Mammographic density was reported to the CMR using Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System categories. The expression of estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), human epidermal growth factor receptor 1 and 2 (HER1 and HER2), and cytokeratin 5/6 (CK5/6) were assessed by immunohistochemistry and dichotomized as positive or negative, with ER+ and/or PR+, and HER2- tumors classified as luminal A and ER-, PR-, HER2-, HER1+ and/or CK5/6+ tumors classified as basal-like breast cancer. Triple negative tumors were defined as negative for ER, PR and HER2. Of the 491 cases 175 were missing information on subtypes; the remaining cases included 181 luminal A, 17 luminal B, 48 basal-like, 29 ER-/PR-/HER2+, and 41 unclassified subtypes. Odds ratios comparing each subtype to all controls and case-case odds ratios comparing mammographic density distributions in basal-like to luminal A breast cancers were estimated using logistic regression. Results: Mammographic density was associated with increased risk of both luminal A and basal-like breast cancers, although estimates were imprecise. The magnitude of the odds ratio associated with mammographic density was not substantially different between basal-like and luminal A cancers in case–control analyses and case-case analyses (case-case OR = 1.08 (95% confidence interval: 0.30, 3.84)). Conclusions: These results suggest that risk estimates associated with mammographic density are not distinct for separate breast cancer subtypes (basal-like/triple negative vs. luminal A breast cancers). Studies with a larger number of basal-like breast cancers are needed to confirm our findings

Cumulative Probability of False-Positive Recall or Biopsy Recommendation After 10 Years of Screening Mammography: A Cohort Study

False-positive mammography results are common. Biennial screening may decrease the cumulative probability of false-positive results across many years of repeat screening but could also delay cancer diagnosis

Effect of Observing Change from Comparison Mammograms on Performance of Screening Mammography in a Large Community-based Population

To evaluate the effect of comparison mammograms on accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV1), and cancer detection rate (CDR) of screening mammography to determine the role played by identification of change on comparison mammograms