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

Karla Kerlikowske, Rebecca Smith-Bindman, Linn A. Abraham, Constance D. Lehman, Bonnie C. Yankaskas, Rachel Ballard-Barbash, William E. Barlow, Jennifer H. Voeks, Berta M. Geller, Patricia (Patty) Carney, Edward A. Sickles

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

44 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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, χ2 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 II 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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)684-692
Number of pages9
JournalRadiology
Volume234
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 2005
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Mammography
Early Detection of Cancer
Breast Neoplasms
Registries
Neoplasms
Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating
Research Ethics Committees
Diagnostic Imaging
Information Systems
Breast
Databases
Pathology

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiological and Ultrasound Technology

Cite this

Kerlikowske, K., Smith-Bindman, R., Abraham, L. A., Lehman, C. D., Yankaskas, B. C., Ballard-Barbash, R., ... Sickles, E. A. (2005). Breast cancer yield for screening mammographic examinations with recommendation for short-interval follow-up. Radiology, 234(3), 684-692. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2343031976

Breast cancer yield for screening mammographic examinations with recommendation for short-interval follow-up. / Kerlikowske, Karla; Smith-Bindman, Rebecca; Abraham, Linn A.; Lehman, Constance D.; Yankaskas, Bonnie C.; Ballard-Barbash, Rachel; Barlow, William E.; Voeks, Jennifer H.; Geller, Berta M.; Carney, Patricia (Patty); Sickles, Edward A.

In: Radiology, Vol. 234, No. 3, 03.2005, p. 684-692.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Kerlikowske, K, Smith-Bindman, R, Abraham, LA, Lehman, CD, Yankaskas, BC, Ballard-Barbash, R, Barlow, WE, Voeks, JH, Geller, BM, Carney, PP & Sickles, EA 2005, 'Breast cancer yield for screening mammographic examinations with recommendation for short-interval follow-up', Radiology, vol. 234, no. 3, pp. 684-692. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2343031976
Kerlikowske K, Smith-Bindman R, Abraham LA, Lehman CD, Yankaskas BC, Ballard-Barbash R et al. Breast cancer yield for screening mammographic examinations with recommendation for short-interval follow-up. Radiology. 2005 Mar;234(3):684-692. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2343031976
Kerlikowske, Karla ; Smith-Bindman, Rebecca ; Abraham, Linn A. ; Lehman, Constance D. ; Yankaskas, Bonnie C. ; Ballard-Barbash, Rachel ; Barlow, William E. ; Voeks, Jennifer H. ; Geller, Berta M. ; Carney, Patricia (Patty) ; Sickles, Edward A. / Breast cancer yield for screening mammographic examinations with recommendation for short-interval follow-up. In: Radiology. 2005 ; Vol. 234, No. 3. pp. 684-692.
@article{3a79e7f8ff7c40ac94c4fffb894dabfb,
title = "Breast cancer yield for screening mammographic examinations with recommendation for short-interval follow-up",
abstract = "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, χ2 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 II 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.",
author = "Karla Kerlikowske and Rebecca Smith-Bindman and Abraham, {Linn A.} and Lehman, {Constance D.} and Yankaskas, {Bonnie C.} and Rachel Ballard-Barbash and Barlow, {William E.} and Voeks, {Jennifer H.} and Geller, {Berta M.} and Carney, {Patricia (Patty)} and Sickles, {Edward A.}",
year = "2005",
month = "3",
doi = "10.1148/radiol.2343031976",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "234",
pages = "684--692",
journal = "Radiology",
issn = "0033-8419",
publisher = "Radiological Society of North America Inc.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Breast cancer yield for screening mammographic examinations with recommendation for short-interval follow-up

AU - Kerlikowske, Karla

AU - Smith-Bindman, Rebecca

AU - Abraham, Linn A.

AU - Lehman, Constance D.

AU - Yankaskas, Bonnie C.

AU - Ballard-Barbash, Rachel

AU - Barlow, William E.

AU - Voeks, Jennifer H.

AU - Geller, Berta M.

AU - Carney, Patricia (Patty)

AU - Sickles, Edward A.

PY - 2005/3

Y1 - 2005/3

N2 - 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, χ2 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 II 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.

AB - 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, χ2 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 II 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=13844299392&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=13844299392&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1148/radiol.2343031976

DO - 10.1148/radiol.2343031976

M3 - Article

C2 - 15734926

AN - SCOPUS:13844299392

VL - 234

SP - 684

EP - 692

JO - Radiology

JF - Radiology

SN - 0033-8419

IS - 3

ER -