Trends in recall, biopsy, and positive biopsy rates for screening mammography in an academic practice.

PURPOSE To retrospectively evaluate whether recall, biopsy, and positive biopsy rates for a group of radiologists who met requirements of Mammography Quality Standards Act of 1992 (MQSA) demonstrated any change over time during a 27-month period (nine consecutive calendar quarters). MATERIALS AND METHODS Institutional review board approved study protocol, and informed consent was waived. All screening mammograms that had been interpreted by MQSA-qualified radiologists between January 1, 2001, and March 31, 2003, were reviewed. Group recall rates, biopsy rates, and detected cancer rates for nine calendar quarters were computed and attributed to performance date of original screening mammogram. Type of biopsy performed was classified as follows: stereotactic vacuum-assisted biopsy, ultrasonography (US)-guided core biopsy, US-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy, surgical excision, and multiple biopsies. chi(2) Test for trend (two sided) and linear regression were used to assess trends over time for recall and biopsy rates, biopsy rates according to type of biopsy performed, and percentage of biopsy results positive for cancer. RESULTS Group recall rate did not show a statistically significant trend during period studied (P = .59). Biopsy rates increased significantly from 13.02 to 20.12 per 1000 screening examinations (P < .001). A corresponding substantial decrease was seen in percentage of biopsies in which malignancy was found, although this trend was not statistically significant (P = .24). A significant increase (from 4.72 to 9.88 per 1000 screening examinations) was found in rate of stereotactic vacuum-assisted 11-gauge core biopsies performed (P < .001). CONCLUSION Observed increase in biopsy rates reinforces the need to carefully select patients for biopsy to achieve efficient, efficacious, and cost-effective programs for early detection of breast cancers.

[1]  A. Roque,et al.  Mammography and Computerized Decision Systems , 2002, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[2]  Computer-Aided Detection of Breast Cancer: Has Promise Outstripped Performance? , 2004 .

[3]  C. D'Orsi,et al.  International variation in screening mammography interpretations in community-based programs. , 2003, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[4]  D. Wolverton,et al.  Performance parameters for screening and diagnostic mammography: specialist and general radiologists. , 2002, Radiology.

[5]  I. Suramo,et al.  Mammography screening--reasons for recall and the influence of experience on recall in the Finnish system. , 1990, Clinical radiology.

[6]  Luisa P. Wallace,et al.  Changes in breast cancer detection and mammography recall rates after the introduction of a computer-aided detection system. , 2004, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[7]  F. Schmidt,et al.  Medical audit after 26,711 breast imaging studies , 1998, Cancer.

[8]  C. Markopoulos,et al.  Computer-aided preoperative diagnosis of microcalcifications on mammograms. , 2003, Acta radiologica.

[9]  Karla Kerlikowske,et al.  Comparison of screening mammography in the United States and the United kingdom. , 2003, JAMA.

[10]  Emily F Conant,et al.  Association of volume and volume-independent factors with accuracy in screening mammogram interpretation. , 2003, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[11]  Michael J Schell,et al.  Recall and detection rates in screening mammography , 2004, Cancer.

[12]  Helen C. Cowley,et al.  Improving the accuracy of mammography: volume and outcome relationships. , 2002, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[13]  B. Trock,et al.  Acceptability of Diagnostic Tests for Breast Cancer , 2003, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[14]  Rebecca S Lewis,et al.  Does training in the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) improve biopsy recommendations or feature analysis agreement with experienced breast imagers at mammography? , 2002, Radiology.

[15]  S. Fields,et al.  Quantitative characterization of mass lesions on digitized mammograms for computer-assisted diagnosis. , 2000, Investigative radiology.

[16]  R. Smith,et al.  The mammography audit: a primer for the mammography quality standards act (MQSA). , 1995, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[17]  E A Sickles,et al.  Standardized abnormal interpretation and cancer detection ratios to assess reading volume and reader performance in a breast screening program. , 2000, Radiology.

[18]  J. Elmore,et al.  Does diagnostic accuracy in mammography depend on radiologists' experience? , 1998, Journal of women's health.

[19]  P. Dean,et al.  Screening mammography in Finland--1.5 million examinations with 97 percent specificity. Mammography Working Group, Radiological Society of Finland. , 1999, Acta oncologica.