Analysis of Participant Factors That Affect the Diagnostic Performance of Screening Mammography: A Report of the Alliance for Breast Cancer Screening in Korea

被引:14
作者
Kim, Young Joong [1 ]
Lee, Eun Hye [2 ]
Jun, Jae Kwan [3 ]
Shin, Dong-Rock [4 ]
Park, Young Mi [5 ]
Kim, Hye-Won [6 ]
Kim, Youme [7 ]
Kim, Keum Won [1 ]
Lim, Hyo Soon [8 ]
Park, Jeong Seon [9 ]
Kim, Hye Jung [10 ]
Jo, Hye-Mi [3 ]
机构
[1] Konyang Univ, Coll Med, Konyang Univ Hosp, Dept Radiol, Daejeon 35365, South Korea
[2] Soonchunhyang Univ, Coll Med, Bucheon Hosp, Dept Radiol, 170 Jomaru Ro, Bucheon 14584, South Korea
[3] Natl Canc Ctr, Natl Canc Control Inst, Goyang 10408, South Korea
[4] Univ Ulsan, Coll Med, Gangneung Asan Hosp, Dept Radiol, Kangnung 25440, South Korea
[5] Inje Univ, Coll Med, Busan Paik Hosp, Dept Radiol, Busan 47392, South Korea
[6] Wonkwang Univ, Sch Med, Wonkwang Univ Hosp, Dept Radiol, Iksan 54538, South Korea
[7] Dankook Univ, Coll Med, Dankook Univ Hosp, Dept Radiol, Cheonan 31116, South Korea
[8] Chonnam Natl Univ, Coll Med, Hwasun Hosp, Dept Radiol, Hwasun 58128, South Korea
[9] Hanyang Univ, Coll Med, Hanyang Univ Hosp, Dept Radiol, Seoul 04763, South Korea
[10] Kyungpook Natl Univ, Coll Med, Med Ctr, Dept Radiol, Daegu 41404, South Korea
关键词
Screening mammography; Cancer detection rates; Audit; National mammography database; REPLACEMENT THERAPY; DENSITY; AGE; SENSITIVITY; WOMEN; INTERVAL; OUTCOMES; RISK; US;
D O I
10.3348/kjr.2017.18.4.624
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Objective: To analyze participant factors that affect the diagnostic performance of screening mammography. Materials and Methods: We enrolled 128756 cases from 10 hospitals between 2005 and 2010. We analyzed recall rate, cancer detection rate (CDR) per 1000 examinations, positive predictive value (PPV), sensitivity, specificity, false positive rate (FPR), and interval cancer rate (ICR) per 1000 negative examinations according to participant factors including age, breast density, and number of visit to the same institution, and adjusted for confounding variables. Results: Increasing age improved recall rates (27.4% in 40's, 17.5% in 50's, 11.1% in 60's, and 8.6% in 70's), CDR (2.7, 3.2, 2.0, and 2.4), PPV (1.0, 1.8, 1.8, and 2.8%), sensitivity (81.3, 88.8, 90.3, and 94.7%), specificity (72.7, 82.7, 89.0, and 91.7%), and FPR (27.3, 17.3, 11.0, and 8.4%) (p < 0.05). Higher breast density impaired recall rates (4.0% in P1, 9.0% in P2, 28.9% in P3, and 27.8% in P4), PPV (3.3, 2.3, 1.2, and 1.3%), specificity (96.1, 91.2, 71.4, and 72.5%), and FPR (3.9, 8.9, 28.6, and 27.6%) (p < 0.001). It also increased CDR (1.3, 2.1, 3.3, and 3.6) and ICR (0.2, 0.3, 0.6, and 1.6) (p < 0.05). Successive visits to the same institution improved recall rates (20.9% for one visit, 10.7% for two visits, 7.7% for more than three visits), PPV (1.6, 2.8, and 2.7%), specificity (79.4, 89.6, and 92.5%), and FPR (20.6, 10.4, and 7.5%) (p < 0.001). Conclusion: Young age and dense breasts negatively affected diagnostic performance in mammography screening, whereas successive visits to the same institution had a positive effect. Examinee education for successive visits to the same institution would improve the diagnostic performance.
引用
收藏
页码:624 / 631
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Estimating Distributions of Breast Cancer Onset and Growth in a Swedish Mammography Screening Cohort
    Strandberg, Rickard
    Czene, Kamila
    Eriksson, Mikael
    Hall, Per
    Humphreys, Keith
    CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY BIOMARKERS & PREVENTION, 2022, 31 (03) : 569 - 577
  • [22] Community-Based Breast Cancer Screening Using Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Versus Digital Mammography: Comparison of Screening Performance and Tumor Characteristics
    Regen-Tuero, Helaina C.
    Ram, Shruthi
    Gass, Jennifer S.
    Lourenco, Ana P.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2022, 218 (02) : 249 - 256
  • [23] Effect of mammography screening on the long-term survival of breast cancer patients: results from the National Cancer Screening Program in Korea
    Luu, Xuan Quy
    Lee, Kyeongmin
    Jun, Jae Kwan
    Suh, Mina
    Jung, Kyu-Won
    Choi, Kui Son
    EPIDEMIOLOGY AND HEALTH, 2022, 44
  • [24] Comparison of Mammography in Combination with Breast Ultrasonography Versus Mammography Alone for Breast Cancer Screening in Asymptomatic Women
    Boonlikit, Sarawan
    ASIAN PACIFIC JOURNAL OF CANCER PREVENTION, 2013, 14 (12) : 7731 - 7736
  • [25] Impact of breast size and composition on the accuracy of mammography and ultrasonography in breast cancer screening
    Nakamura, Akira
    Ohnuki, Koji
    Takahashi, Haruka
    Usami, Shin
    Ishida, Yuki
    Shibata, Setsuko
    Umemura, Akiko
    Kano, Atsushi
    BREAST CANCER, 2025, 32 (02) : 385 - 392
  • [26] Improved Performance of Adjunctive Ultrasonography After Mammography Screening for Breast Cancer Among Chinese Females
    Dong, Henglei
    Huang, Yubei
    Song, Fengju
    Dai, Hongji
    Liu, Peifang
    Zhu, Ying
    Wang, Peishan
    Han, Jiali
    Hao, Xishan
    Chen, Kexin
    CLINICAL BREAST CANCER, 2018, 18 (03) : E353 - E361
  • [27] Breast Cancer Overdiagnosis With Screening Mammography
    Jatoi, Ismail
    Anderson, William F.
    ARCHIVES OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2009, 169 (10) : 999 - 1000
  • [28] Breast Cancer Detection in a Screening Population: Comparison of Digital Mammography, Computer-Aided Detection Applied to Digital Mammography and Breast Ultrasound
    Cho, Kyu Ran
    Seo, Bo Kyoung
    Woo, Ok Hee
    Song, Sung Eun
    Choi, Jungsoon
    Whang, Shin Young
    Park, Eun Kyung
    Park, Ah Young
    Shin, Hyeseon
    Chung, Hwan Hoon
    JOURNAL OF BREAST CANCER, 2016, 19 (03) : 316 - 323
  • [29] Beyond Mammography: New Frontiers in Breast Cancer Screening
    Drukteinis, Jennifer S.
    Mooney, Blaise P.
    Flowers, Chris I.
    Gatenby, Robert A.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2013, 126 (06) : 472 - 479
  • [30] Diagnostic performance of mammography and ultrasound in breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Tadesse, Getu Ferenji
    Tegaw, Eyachew Misganew
    Abdisa, Ejigu Kebede
    JOURNAL OF ULTRASOUND, 2023, 26 (02) : 355 - 367