| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Breast Imaging |
1 From the Biostatistics Division, Department of Interdisciplinary Oncology, Moffitt Research Center, 12902 Magnolia Dr, Tampa, FL 33612-9497 (M.J.S.); Departments of Radiology (B.C.Y.) and Biostatistics (B.F.Q.), University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC; Applied Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Studies, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Md (R.B.); Department of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash (W.E.B.); Department of Radiology, University of New Mexico, Health Sciences Center, Albuquerque, NM (R.D.R.); and Department of Radiology, Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif (R.S.). Received February 27, 2006; revision requested April 27; revision received July 28; accepted August 29; final version accepted October 4. Supported by a National Cancer Institute–funded Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium cooperative agreement (U01CA63740, U01CA86076, U01CA86082, U01CA63736, U01CA70013, U01CA69976, U01CA63731, U01CA70040). Address correspondence to M.J.S. (e-mail: michael.schell{at}moffitt.org).
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).
© RSNA, 2007
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  W. A. Berg, J. D. Blume, J. B. Cormack, E. B. Mendelson, D. Lehrer, M. Bohm-Velez, E. D. Pisano, R. A. Jong, W. P. Evans, M. J. Morton, et al. Combined Screening With Ultrasound and Mammography vs Mammography Alone in Women at Elevated Risk of Breast Cancer JAMA, May 14, 2008; 299(18): 2151 - 2163. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. G. Elmore and R. J. Brenner The More Eyes, the Better to See? From Double to Quadruple Reading of Screening Mammograms J Natl Cancer Inst, August 1, 2007; 99(15): 1141 - 1143. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
