Original InvestigationEffect of variations in operational definitions on performance estimates for screening Mammography*
References (21)
- et al.
Negative mammograms in symptomatic patients with breast cancer
Acad Radiol
(1998) - et al.
Improvement in mammography interpretation skills in a community radiology practice after dedicated teaching courses: two-year medical audit of 38,633 cases
Radiology
(1992) - et al.
Xeromammography of the breast: overview of 21,057 consecutive cases
Radiology
(1987) Detecting early breast cancer: experience in a community hospital
Cancer
(1989)- et al.
Effect of age, breast density, and family history on the sensitivity of first screening mammogram
Jama
(1996) - et al.
Mammography use and outcomes in a community: the Greater Lansing Area Mammography Study
Cancer
(1993) Low-cost screening mammography: report on finances and review of 21,716 consecutive cases
Radiology
(1989)- et al.
Sojourn time, sensitivity and positive predictive value of mammography screening for breast cancer in women aged 40–49
Int J Epidemiol
(1996) - et al.
Screening mammography: sensitivity and specificity in relation to hormone replacement therapy
Radiology
(1997) - et al.
Effect of estrogen replacement therapy on the specificity and sensitivity of screening mammography
J Natl Cancer Inst
(1996)
Cited by (28)
Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging Audit: Pitfalls, Challenges, and Future Considerations
2021, Radiologic Clinics of North AmericaCitation Excerpt :Truncating the audit follow-up period of the breast MR imaging removes the overlapping follow-up period for the alternating screening tests, even though they both occurred within a 1 year period. Elimination of the dual attribution of a single cancer as both true-positive for screening mammography and false-negative for MR imaging increases the calculated sensitivity of MR imaging.37 By classifying the MR imaging in this example as a true-negative examination, the calculated specificity for MR imaging increases as well.
Breast cancer screening outreach effectiveness: Mammogram-specific reminders vs. comprehensive preventive services birthday letters
2017, Preventive MedicineCitation Excerpt :Overdue letters (N = 87,910) included combination of women who did not have a mammogram in the previous 12–24 months or who never had a prior mammogram. Screening adherence was defined based on screening mammogram receipt (Rosenberg et al., 2000) within a 6-month window specifically timed to the due-date indicated in the reminder letter. All overdue women had 6-months from the letter to complete screening, regardless of letter type (Fig. 1c, d).
Computer-Assisted Mammography Feedback Program (CAMFP). An Electronic Tool For Continuing Medical Education
2007, Academic RadiologyCitation Excerpt :The CAMFP software was designed to give radiologists feedback with respect to the specific region on a breast with a lesion, but this aspect of the program was used only for training to avoid contention regarding whether or not a radiologist had clicked on a lesion correctly. Our results may be of interest in the context of measurement of mammography performance, because it has been shown that the definition of true positives affects the measurements of sensitivity and specificity (19). There were several instances where diseased subjects were given an American College of Radiology BI-RADS 4 or 5 rating but the radiologist incorrectly located the lesion in the contralateral breast.
The use of additional imaging increased specificity and decreased sensitivity in screening mammography
2005, Journal of Clinical EpidemiologyCitation Excerpt :This constitutes 10% of the false negatives in the study. Nevertheless, our results are similar to those for other community radiologists reported in the literature, with sensitivities of 82.7 and 84.3%, and a specificities of 90.5 and 90.3% reported respectively by Poplack et al. [28] and Rosenberg et al. [29]. Radiologists in the United States have a much higher recall rate than mammography screening programs in most other countries.
Molecular breast imaging for screening in dense breasts: State of the art and future directions
2017, American Journal of Roentgenology
- *
Supported by National Cancer Institute grant CA-95-004: Breast Cancer urveillance Research.