Performance of Screening Mammography: A Report of the Alliance for Breast Cancer Screening in Korea

Lee, Eun Hye; Kim, Keum Won; Kim, Young Joong; Shin, Dong Rock; Park, Young Mi; Lim, Hyo Soon; Park, Jeong Seon; Kim, Hye Won; Kim, You-Me; Kim, Hye Jung; Jun, Jae Kwan

doi:10.3348/kjr.2016.17.4.489

Cited by 34 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The performance indicators were defined in our previous report (11). We analyzed all data by age, breast density, and the number of visits to the same institution; we calculated odds ratios (ORs) (both crude [cORs] and adjusted [aORs], with 95% confidence intervals).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo analyze participant factors that affect the diagnostic performance of screening mammography.Materials and MethodsWe 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.ResultsIncreasing 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).ConclusionYoung 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.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thanks to the implementation of digital mammography, additional diagnostic accuracy can be achieved for specific subgroups of women, presumably from its superior ability to depict cancers in dense breast tissue . However, MX is an imperfect tool in detecting breast cancer, with an overall sensitivity of 75%‐85%, dropping as low as 30%‐50% in women with a BRCA gene mutation . Specificity is limited, and the positive predictive value of a biopsy recommendation is in the 25%‐45% range .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Specificity is limited, and the positive predictive value of a biopsy recommendation is in the 25%‐45% range . As many as 20%‐30% of breast cancers will not be detected on a mammogram . Mammographic sensitivity decreases with the increasing of parenchyma density due to a superimposition of dense breast tissue on a two‐dimensional (2D) mammographic projection.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Digital breast tomosynthesis and contrast‐enhanced dual‐energy digital mammography alone and in combination compared to 2D digital synthetized mammography and MR imaging in breast cancer detection and classification

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To compare diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced dual-energy digital mammography (CEDM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) alone and in combination compared to 2D digital mammography (MX) and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) in women with breast lesions. We enrolled 100 consecutive patients with breast lesions (BIRADS 3-5 at imaging or clinically suspicious). CEDM, DBT, and DCE-MRI 2D were acquired. Synthetized MX was obtained by DBT. A total of 134 lesions were investigated on 111 breasts of 100 enrolled patients: 53 were histopathologically proven as benign and 81 as malignant. Nonparametric statistics and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve were performed. Two-dimensional synthetized MX showed an area under ROC curve (AUC) of 0.764 (sensitivity 65%, specificity 80%), while AUC was of 0.845 (sensitivity 80%, specificity 82%) for DBT, of 0.879 (sensitivity 82%, specificity 80%) for CEDM, and of 0.892 (sensitivity 91%, specificity 84%) for CE-MRI. DCE-MRI determined an AUC of 0.934 (sensitivity 96%, specificity 88%). Combined CEDM with DBT findings, we obtained an AUC of 0.890 (sensitivity 89%, specificity 74%). A difference statistically significant was observed only between DCE-MRI and CEDM (P = .03). DBT, CEDM, CEDM combined to tomosynthesis, and DCE-MRI had a high ability to identify multifocal and bilateral lesions with a detection rate of 77%, 85%, 91%, and 95% respectively, while 2D synthetized MX had a detection rate for multifocal lesions of 56%. DBT and CEDM have superior diagnostic accuracy of 2D synthetized MX to identify and classify breast lesions, and CEDM combined with DBT has better diagnostic performance compared with DBT alone. The best results in terms of diagnostic performance were obtained by DCE-MRI. Dynamic information obtained by time-intensity curve including entire phase of contrast agent uptake allows a better detection and classification of breast lesions. | 861 PETRILLO ET aL.

show abstract

“…Regarding the DTA studies, one reviewer experienced in DTA studies selected eligible articles according to criteria established elsewhere ( 9 ) with additional confirmation by another DTA expert in cases of ambiguity. Of the initial 124 candidate articles, 63 articles ( 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 ) were finally included. Regarding the studies that analyzed reliability, eligible articles were chosen by consensus after review by two of four independent reviewers experienced in the relevant methodology.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Selection and Reporting of Statistical Methods to Assess Reliability of a Diagnostic Test: Conformity to Recommended Methods in a Peer-Reviewed Journal

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo evaluate the frequency and adequacy of statistical analyses in a general radiology journal when reporting a reliability analysis for a diagnostic test.Materials and MethodsSixty-three studies of diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) and 36 studies reporting reliability analyses published in the Korean Journal of Radiology between 2012 and 2016 were analyzed. Studies were judged using the methodological guidelines of the Radiological Society of North America-Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers Alliance (RSNA-QIBA), and COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) initiative. DTA studies were evaluated by nine editorial board members of the journal. Reliability studies were evaluated by study reviewers experienced with reliability analysis.ResultsThirty-one (49.2%) of the 63 DTA studies did not include a reliability analysis when deemed necessary. Among the 36 reliability studies, proper statistical methods were used in all (5/5) studies dealing with dichotomous/nominal data, 46.7% (7/15) of studies dealing with ordinal data, and 95.2% (20/21) of studies dealing with continuous data. Statistical methods were described in sufficient detail regarding weighted kappa in 28.6% (2/7) of studies and regarding the model and assumptions of intraclass correlation coefficient in 35.3% (6/17) and 29.4% (5/17) of studies, respectively. Reliability parameters were used as if they were agreement parameters in 23.1% (3/13) of studies. Reproducibility and repeatability were used incorrectly in 20% (3/15) of studies.ConclusionGreater attention to the importance of reporting reliability, thorough description of the related statistical methods, efforts not to neglect agreement parameters, and better use of relevant terminology is necessary.

show abstract

Performance of Screening Mammography: A Report of the Alliance for Breast Cancer Screening in Korea

Cited by 34 publications

References 14 publications

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

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

Digital breast tomosynthesis and contrast‐enhanced dual‐energy digital mammography alone and in combination compared to 2D digital synthetized mammography and MR imaging in breast cancer detection and classification

Selection and Reporting of Statistical Methods to Assess Reliability of a Diagnostic Test: Conformity to Recommended Methods in a Peer-Reviewed Journal

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About