Performance of clinical mammography: A nationwide study from Denmark

被引:23
作者
Jensen, Allan
Vejborg, Ilse
Severinsen, Niels
Nielsen, Susanne
Rank, Fritz
Mikkelsen, Gerd Just
Hilden, Jorgen
Vistisen, Dorte
Dyreborg, Uffe
Lynge, Elsebeth
机构
[1] Univ Copenhagen, Inst Publ Hlth, Dept Epidemiol, DK-1014 Copenhagen K, Denmark
[2] Univ Copenhagen Hosp, Ctr Diagnost Imaging, DK-2100 Copenhagen O, Denmark
[3] Univ Copenhagen Hosp, Dept Pathol, DK-2100 Copenhagen O, Denmark
[4] Natl Board Hlth, Danish Ctr Evaluat & Hlth Technol Assessment, Copenhagen S, Denmark
[5] Steno Diabet Ctr, DK-2820 Gentofte, Denmark
[6] Odense Univ Hosp, Ctr Diagnost Imaging, DK-5000 Odense, Denmark
关键词
mammography; breast cancer; organization; sensitivity; specificity; accuracy;
D O I
10.1002/ijc.21811
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Clinical mammography is the key tool for breast cancer diagnosis, but little is known about the impact of the organisational set-up on the performance. We evaluated whether organisatorial factors influence the performance of clinical mammography. Clinical mammography data from all clinics in Denmark in the year 2000 were collected and linked to cancer outcome. Use of the National Institute of Radiation Hygiene register for identification of radiology clinics ensured comprehensive nationwide registration. We used the final mammographic assessment at the end of the imaging work-up to determine sensitivity, specificity and accuracy, the latter using a receiver-operating characteristics (ROC) analysis. In 96,534 clinical mammography examinations, sensitivity was 75% and specificity 99%. The presence of at least one high volume-reading radiologist in the clinic increased accuracy (AUC = 0.91 for < 1,000 examinations/year and 0.92 for > 2,000 examinations/year, p = 0.017). The examination volume per clinic showed no clear effect on performance, as accuracy was significantly higher in clinics with a medium number of examinations (AUC = 0.93 for 2.000-4,000 examinations/year and 0.90 for > 6,000 examinations/year, p = 0.003). Accuracy was significantly lower in regions with high annual utilisation rate of clinical mammography, which means the proportion of examined women in a region (AUC = 0.90 for 3.0-5.0% annual utilisation rate and AUC = 0.93 for 2.0-2.5% annual utilisation rate, and p = 0.001), indicating that clinical mammography worked best in patient populations of purely symptomatic women. Our data indicate that to increase the accuracy of clinical mammography at the community level, the presence of an experienced radiologist should be prioritised ahead of raising the clinic size. (c) 2006 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
引用
收藏
页码:183 / 191
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
[21]   Performance of Digital Screening Mammography Among Older Women in the United States [J].
Henderson, Louise M. ;
O'Meara, Ellen S. ;
Braithwaite, Dejana ;
Onega, Tracy .
CANCER, 2015, 121 (09) :1379-1386
[22]   Performance characteristics of digital vs film screen mammography in community practice [J].
Dabbous, Firas ;
Dolecek, Therese A. ;
Friedewald, Sarah M. ;
Tossas-Milligan, Katherine Y. ;
Macarol, Tere ;
Summerfelt, Wm. Thomas ;
Rauscher, Garth H. .
BREAST JOURNAL, 2018, 24 (03) :369-372
[23]   Improving the Performance of Radiologists Using Artificial Intelligence-Based Detection Support Software for Mammography: A Multi-Reader Study [J].
Lee, Jeong Hoon ;
Kim, Ki Hwan ;
Lee, Eun Hye ;
Ahn, Jong Seok ;
Ryu, Jung Kyu ;
Park, Young Mi ;
Shin, Gi Won ;
Kim, Young Joong ;
Choi, Hye Young .
KOREAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2022, 23 (05) :505-516
[24]   Radiologist Characteristics Associated with Interpretive Performance of Screening Mammography: A National Mammography Database (NMD) Study [J].
Lee, Cindy S. ;
Moy, Linda ;
Hughes, Danny ;
Golden, Dan ;
Bhargavan-Chatfield, Mythreyi ;
Hemingway, Jennifer ;
Geras, Agnieszka ;
Duszak, Richard ;
Rosenkrantz, Andrew B. .
RADIOLOGY, 2021, 300 (03) :518-528
[25]   The influence of clinical information on the accuracy of diagnostic mammography [J].
Nehmat Houssami ;
Les Irwig ;
Judy M Simpson ;
Merran McKessar ;
Steven Blome ;
Jennie Noakes .
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, 2004, 85 :223-228
[26]   The influence of clinical information on the accuracy of diagnostic mammography [J].
Houssami, N ;
Irwig, L ;
Simpson, JM ;
McKessar, M ;
Blome, S ;
Noakes, J .
BREAST CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT, 2004, 85 (03) :223-228
[27]   Performance assessment for radiologists interpreting screening mammography [J].
Woodard, D. B. ;
Gelfand, A. E. ;
Barlow, W. E. ;
Elmore, J. G. .
STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2007, 26 (07) :1532-1551
[28]   Balancing sensitivity and specificity: Sixteen year's of experience from the mammography screening programme in Copenhagen, Denmark [J].
Utzon-Frank, Nicolai ;
Vejborg, Ilse ;
von Euler-Chelpin, My ;
Lynge, Elsebeth .
CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2011, 35 (05) :393-398
[29]   Diagnostic performance of mammography and ultrasound in breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis [J].
Tadesse, Getu Ferenji ;
Tegaw, Eyachew Misganew ;
Abdisa, Ejigu Kebede .
JOURNAL OF ULTRASOUND, 2023, 26 (02) :355-367
[30]   Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography vs. mammography and MRI – clinical performance in a multi-reader evaluation [J].
Eva M. Fallenberg ;
Florian F. Schmitzberger ;
Heba Amer ;
Barbara Ingold-Heppner ;
Corinne Balleyguier ;
Felix Diekmann ;
Florian Engelken ;
Ritse M. Mann ;
Diane M. Renz ;
Ulrich Bick ;
Bernd Hamm ;
Clarisse Dromain .
European Radiology, 2017, 27 :2752-2764