Radiology, Vol 187, 75-79, Copyright © 1993 by Radiological Society of North America

ARTICLES

A private breast imaging practice: medical audit of 25,788 screening and 1,077 diagnostic examinations

CL Robertson
Breast Cancer Detection Centers, St Luke's Regional Medical Center, Boise, ID 83712.

During 1989 and 1990, 25,788 screening and 1,077 diagnostic breast imaging examinations were performed. Audit was performed in 6-month intervals to allow comparison of performance over time. Sensitivity, positive predictive value, and stage of disease were determined for each radiologist, for patients over and those under 50 years of age, and for patients with and for those without a suspect palpable breast abnormality. In the screening portion of the study, 1,539 of 25,788 (5.9%) patients were asked to return for diagnostic breast imaging, 119 of 188 (63%) cancers were stage 0 or stage 1 disease, and a sensitivity of 91% and a positive predictive value of 11% were found. If patients with a palpable breast abnormality were eliminated, 103 of 138 (75%) patients had disease that was less than stage 2. In the diagnostic portion of the study, 296 of 1,077 (27%) patients were referred for biopsy and 53 of 71 (75%) cancers were stage 0 or stage 1 disease. A sensitivity of 97% and a positive predictive value of 24% were found. If patients with a palpable breast abnormality were eliminated, 51 of 63 (81%) patients had disease that was less than stage 2.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. W. T. Leung, F. R. Margolin, K. E. Dee, R. P. Jacobs, S. R. Denny, and John. D. Schrumpf Performance Parameters for Screening and Diagnostic Mammography in a Community Practice: Are There Differences Between Specialists and General Radiologists? Am. J. Roentgenol., January 1, 2007; 188(1): 236 - 241. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. F. Brem, J. W. Hoffmeister, G. Zisman, M. P. DeSimio, and S. K. Rogers A Computer-Aided Detection System for the Evaluation of Breast Cancer by Mammographic Appearance and Lesion Size Am. J. Roentgenol., March 1, 2005; 184(3): 893 - 896. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. E. Lafata, J. Simpkins, L. Lamerato, L. Poisson, G. Divine, and C. C. Johnson The Economic Impact of False-Positive Cancer Screens Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., December 1, 2004; 13(12): 2126 - 2132. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				W. A. Berg, L. Gutierrez, M. S. NessAiver, W. B. Carter, M. Bhargavan, R. S. Lewis, and O. B. Ioffe Diagnostic Accuracy of Mammography, Clinical Examination, US, and MR Imaging in Preoperative Assessment of Breast Cancer Radiology, December 1, 2004; 233(3): 830 - 849. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. G. Elmore, C. Y. Nakano, T. D. Koepsell, L. M. Desnick, C. J. D'Orsi, and D. F. Ransohoff International Variation in Screening Mammography Interpretations in Community-Based Programs J Natl Cancer Inst, September 17, 2003; 95(18): 1384 - 1393. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. F. Brem, J. Baum, M. Lechner, S. Kaplan, S. Souders, L. G. Naul, and J. Hoffmeister Improvement in Sensitivity of Screening Mammography with Computer-Aided Detection: A Multiinstitutional Trial Am. J. Roentgenol., September 1, 2003; 181(3): 687 - 693. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. Crystal, S. D. Strano, S. Shcharynski, and M. J. Koretz Using Sonography to Screen Women with Mammographically Dense Breasts Am. J. Roentgenol., July 1, 2003; 181(1): 177 - 182. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. S. Burnside, E. A. Sickles, R. E. Sohlich, and K. E. Dee Differential Value of Comparison with Previous Examinations in Diagnostic Versus Screening Mammography Am. J. Roentgenol., November 1, 2002; 179(5): 1173 - 1177. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. G. Elmore, D. L. Miglioretti, L. M. Reisch, M. B. Barton, W. Kreuter, C. L. Christiansen, and S. W. Fletcher Screening Mammograms by Community Radiologists: Variability in False-Positive Rates J Natl Cancer Inst, September 18, 2002; 94(18): 1373 - 1380. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. A. Sickles, D. E. Wolverton, and K. E. Dee Performance Parameters for Screening and Diagnostic Mammography: Specialist and General Radiologists Radiology, September 1, 2002; 224(3): 861 - 869. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. E. Sohlich, E. A. Sickles, E. S. Burnside, and K. E. Dee Interpreting Data from Audits When Screening and Diagnostic Mammography Outcomes Are Combined Am. J. Roentgenol., March 1, 2002; 178(3): 681 - 686. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. E. Dee and E. A. Sickles Medical Audit of Diagnostic Mammography Examinations: Comparison with Screening Outcomes Obtained Concurrently Am. J. Roentgenol., March 1, 2001; 176(3): 729 - 733. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. M. Lewin, R. E. Hendrick, C. J. D’Orsi, P. K. Isaacs, L. J. Moss, A. Karellas, G. A. Sisney, C. C. Kuni, and G. R. Cutter Comparison of Full-Field Digital Mammography with Screen-Film Mammography for Cancer Detection: Results of 4,945 Paired Examinations Radiology, March 1, 2001; 218(3): 873 - 880. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				S. P. Poplack, A. N. Tosteson, M. R. Grove, W. A. Wells, and P. A. Carney Mammography in 53,803 Women from the New Hampshire Mammography Network Radiology, December 1, 2000; 217(3): 832 - 840. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				H. R Sussman Mammography screening for breast cancer in women under 50 years Fam. Pract., June 1, 2000; 17(3): 272 - 275. [Full Text] [PDF]

				W. A. Berg and P. L. Gilbreath Multicentric and Multifocal Cancer: Whole-Breast US in Preoperative Evaluation1 Radiology, January 1, 2000; 214(1): 59 - 66. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				J. G. Elmore, M. B. Barton, V. M. Moceri, S. Polk, P. J. Arena, and S. W. Fletcher Ten-Year Risk of False Positive Screening Mammograms and Clinical Breast Examinations N. Engl. J. Med., April 16, 1998; 338(16): 1089 - 1096. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]