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
  • [31] Breast density as a determinant of interval cancer at mammographic screening
    S Ciatto
    C Visioli
    E Paci
    M Zappa
    British Journal of Cancer, 2004, 90 : 393 - 396
  • [32] Long- versus short-interval follow-up of cytologically benign thyroid nodules: a prospective cohort study
    Medici, Marco
    Liu, Xiaoyun
    Kwong, Norra
    Angell, Trevor E.
    Marqusee, Ellen
    Kim, Matthew I.
    Alexander, Erik K.
    BMC MEDICINE, 2016, 14
  • [33] Long- versus short-interval follow-up after resection of hepatocellular carcinoma: a retrospective cohort study
    He, Wei
    Zheng, Yun
    Zou, Ruhai
    Shen, Jingxian
    Yang, Junping
    Qiu, Jiliang
    Tao, Qiang
    Liu, Wenwu
    Yang, Zhiwen
    Zhang, Yuanping
    Li, Binkui
    Yuan, Yunfei
    CANCER COMMUNICATIONS, 2018, 38
  • [34] Long- versus short-interval follow-up of cytologically benign thyroid nodules: a prospective cohort study
    Marco Medici
    Xiaoyun Liu
    Norra Kwong
    Trevor E. Angell
    Ellen Marqusee
    Matthew I. Kim
    Erik K. Alexander
    BMC Medicine, 14
  • [35] Community navigators for breast and cervical cancer screening and follow-up
    Melissa A Simon
    Laura S Tom
    Erika E de la Riva
    Emily L Malin
    Joe Feinglass
    Implementation Science, 10 (Suppl 1)
  • [36] Effect of Baseline Breast Density on Breast Cancer Incidence, Stage, Mortality, and Screening Parameters: 25-Year Follow-up of a Swedish Mammographic Screening
    Chiu, Sherry Yueh-Hsia
    Duffy, Stephen
    Yen, Amy Ming-Fang
    Tabar, Laszlo
    Smith, Robert A.
    Chen, Hsiu-Hsi
    CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY BIOMARKERS & PREVENTION, 2010, 19 (05) : 1219 - 1228
  • [37] Screening and follow-up of the patient at high risk for breast cancer
    Willey, Shawna C.
    Cocilovo, Costanza
    OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2007, 110 (06): : 1404 - 1416
  • [38] SCREENING AND FOLLOW-UP OF WOMEN AT RISK FOR BREAST-CANCER
    BERZIN, SA
    MERKULOV, EV
    DEMIDOV, SM
    VOPROSY ONKOLOGII, 1990, 36 (09) : 1117 - 1118
  • [39] An examination of differential follow-up rates in breast cancer screening
    Webber, PA
    Fox, P
    Zhang, XL
    Pond, M
    JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY HEALTH, 1996, 21 (02) : 123 - 132
  • [40] Trends in time to completion of mammographic screening and follow-up services
    Yabroff, K. Robin
    Ashbeck, Erin
    Rosenberg, Robert
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2007, 188 (01) : 242 - 245