共 50 条
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