Breast cancer yield for screening mammographic examinations with recommendation for short-interval follow-up

被引:48
|
作者
Kerlikowske, K [1 ]
Smith-Bindman, R
Abraham, LA
Lehman, CD
Yankaskas, BC
Ballard-Barbash, R
Barlow, WE
Voeks, JH
Geller, BM
Carney, PA
Sickles, EA
机构
[1] Univ Calif San Francisco, Dept Med, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA
[2] Univ Calif San Francisco, Dept Epidemiol & Biostat, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA
[3] Univ Calif San Francisco, Dept Radiol, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA
[4] Vet Affairs Med Ctr, Gen Internal Med Sect, San Francisco, CA 94121 USA
[5] Grp Hlth Cooperat Puget Sound, Ctr Hlth Studies, Seattle, WA 98101 USA
[6] Univ Washington, Med Ctr, Dept Radiol, Seattle Canc Care Alliance, Seattle, WA 98195 USA
[7] Univ N Carolina, Dept Radiol, Chapel Hill, NC USA
[8] NCI, Appl Res Program, DCCPS, Bethesda, MD 20892 USA
[9] Univ Washington, Dept Biostat, Seattle, WA 98195 USA
[10] Canc Res & Biostat, Seattle, WA USA
[11] Cooper Inst, Ctr Res Methods & Biometry, Denver, CO USA
[12] Univ Vermont, Coll Med, Burlington, VT USA
[13] Dartmouth Coll Sch Med, Dept Community & Family Med, Dartmouth Hitchcock Med Ctr, Norris Cotton Canc Ctr, Lebanon, NH USA
关键词
D O I
10.1148/radiol.2343031976
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
PURPOSE: To compare cancer yield for screening examinations with recommendation for short-interval follow-up after diagnostic imaging work-up versus after screening mammography only. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From January 1996 to December 1999, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System assessments and recommendations were collected prospectively for 1171792 screening examinations in 758 015 women aged 40-89 years at seven mammography registries in Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Registries obtained waiver of signed consent or collected signed consent in accordance with institutional review boards at each location. Diagnosis of invasive cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ within 24 months of screening examination and tumor stage and size for invasive cancer were determined through linkage to pathology database or tumor registry. chi(2) test was used to determine significant differences between groups. RESULTS: Overall, 5.2% of first and 1.7% of subsequent screens included recommendation for short-interval follow-up, which was similar to likelihood of recommendation for diagnostic evaluation (first screens, 4.6%; subsequent, 2.6%). Most recommendations for short-interval follow-up were based on screening mammography alone (86.2% of first screens, 77.5% of subsequent). Yield of cancer for screening examinations with probably benign finding (PBF) and recommendation for short-interval follow-up based on screening mammography alone tended to be lower than in those with PBF and recommendation for short-interval follow-up after additional work-up (first screens: 0.54% vs 0.96%, P = .10; subsequent: 1.50% vs 1.73%, P = .26). Proportion of stage 11 and higher disease tended to be higher for examinations with PBF and recommendation for short-interval follow-up based on screening mammography alone compared with those recommended for short-interval follow-up after additional work-up (first screens: 34.7% vs 24.4%, P = .43; subsequent: 27.5% vs 19.2%, P = .13). CONCLUSION: Many first screening examinations include recommendation for short-interval follow-up based on screening mammography alone. Cancer yield for these examinations is low and is lower than that with diagnostic work-up prior to short-interval follow-up recommendation. Absence of diagnostic work-up prior to short-interval follow-up recommendation may result in periodic surveillance of a high proportion of benign lesions. (C) RSNA, 2005.
引用
收藏
页码:684 / 692
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] A comparison between short-interval and regular-interval follow-up for BI-RADS category 3 lesions
    Ruamsup, S.
    Wiratkapun, C.
    Wibulpolprasert, B.
    Lertsithichai, P.
    SINGAPORE MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2010, 51 (02) : 120 - 125
  • [22] Appropriate Follow-Up After Abnormal Lung Cancer Screening Examinations
    Henderson, L. M.
    Durham, D.
    Perera, P.
    Long, J.
    Lane, L.
    Lamb, D.
    Metwally, E. M.
    Rivera, M.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF RESPIRATORY AND CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE, 2022, 205
  • [23] Results of breast conserving therapy for early breast cancer and the role of mammographic follow-up
    Grosse, A
    Schreer, I
    Frischbier, HJ
    Maass, H
    Loening, T
    Bahnsen, J
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 1997, 38 (04): : 761 - 767
  • [24] The Screening, Diagnosis, Treatment, and Follow-Up of Breast Cancer
    Woeckel, Achim
    Albert, Ute-Susann
    Janni, Wolfgang
    Scharl, Anton
    Kreienberg, Rolf
    Stueber, Tanja
    DEUTSCHES ARZTEBLATT INTERNATIONAL, 2018, 115 (18): : 316 - +
  • [25] The Screening, Diagnosis, Treatment, and Follow-Up of Breast Cancer
    Bussmann, Peter
    DEUTSCHES ARZTEBLATT INTERNATIONAL, 2019, 116 (1-2): : 9 - 9
  • [26] REMISSION AND RELAPSE IN SUBJECTS WITH PANIC DISORDER AND PANIC WITH AGORAPHOBIA - A PROSPECTIVE SHORT-INTERVAL NATURALISTIC FOLLOW-UP
    KELLER, MB
    YONKERS, KA
    WARSHAW, MG
    PRATT, LA
    GOLLAN, JK
    MASSION, AO
    WHITE, K
    SWARTZ, AR
    REICH, J
    LAVORI, PW
    JOURNAL OF NERVOUS AND MENTAL DISEASE, 1994, 182 (05) : 290 - 296
  • [27] SIGNIFICANCE OF FOLLOW-UP EXAMINATIONS FOR PALLIATIVE THERAPY OF BREAST-CANCER
    REUSCH, K
    KUSCHE, M
    WEBER, S
    BOLTE, A
    ARCHIVES OF GYNECOLOGY AND OBSTETRICS, 1991, 250 (1-4) : 273 - 275
  • [28] Breast ultrasound surveillance with image fusion technique in a short-interval follow-up for BI-RADS category 3 mass lesions
    Nakano, S.
    Fujii, K.
    Kousaka, J.
    Mouri, Y.
    Ando, T.
    CANCER RESEARCH, 2017, 77
  • [29] Quality Rating of Follow-Up Examinations Conducted on Breast Cancer Patients
    Winzer, K. -J.
    Bellach, J.
    ZENTRALBLATT FUR CHIRURGIE, 2010, 135 (03): : 257 - 261
  • [30] Breast density as a determinant of interval cancer at mammographic screening
    Ciatto, S
    Visioli, C
    Paci, E
    Zappa, M
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2004, 90 (02) : 393 - 396