Effect on sensitivity and specificity of mammography screening with or without comparison of old mammograms

被引:55
作者
Thurfjell, MG
Vitak, B
Azavedo, E
Svane, G
Thurfjell, E [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Uppsala Hosp, Sect Radiol, Dept Oncol Radiol & Clin Immunol, SE-75185 Uppsala, Sweden
[2] Linkoping Univ Hosp, Dept Med & Care, S-58185 Linkoping, Sweden
[3] Karolinska Hosp, Dept Radiol, S-10401 Stockholm, Sweden
关键词
breast neoplasms; mammography; mass screening;
D O I
10.1258/rsmacta.41.1.52
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 evaluate the effect of old mammograms on the specificity and sensitivity of radiologists in mammography screening. Material and Methods: One hundred and fifty sets of screening mammograms were examined by 3 experienced screeners twice: once without and once in comparison with older mammograms. The films came from a population-based screening done during the first half of 1994 and comprised all 35 cancers detected during screening in 1994, 12/24 interval cancers, 14/34 cancers detected in the following screening and 89 normal mammograms. Results: Without old mammograms, the screeners detected an average of 40.3 cancers (range 37-42), with a specificity of 87% (85-88%). With old mammograms, the screeners detected 37.7 cancers (range 34-42) with a specificity of 96% (94-99%). The change in detection rate was not significant. However, the increase in specificity was significant for each screener (p=0.0002-0.03). Conclusion: Mammography screening with old mammograms available for comparison decreased the false-positive recall rate. The effect on sensitivity, however, was unclear.
引用
收藏
页码:52 / 56
页数:5
相关论文
共 13 条
[1]   DIAGNOSTIC OUTCOME OF REPEATED MAMMOGRAPHY SCREENING [J].
ARNESSON, LG ;
VITAK, B ;
MANSON, JC ;
FAGERBERG, G ;
SMEDS, S .
WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 1995, 19 (03) :372-378
[2]   OBTAINING PREVIOUS MAMMOGRAMS FOR COMPARISON - USEFULNESS AND COSTS [J].
BASSETT, LW ;
SHAYESTEHFAR, B ;
HIRBAWI, I .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 1994, 163 (05) :1083-1086
[3]   ANALYSIS OF CANCERS MISSED AT SCREENING MAMMOGRAPHY [J].
BIRD, RE ;
WALLACE, TW ;
YANKASKAS, BC .
RADIOLOGY, 1992, 184 (03) :613-617
[4]   The influence of previous films on screening mammographic interpretation and detection of breast carcinoma [J].
Callaway, MP ;
Boggis, CRM ;
Astley, SA ;
Hutt, I .
CLINICAL RADIOLOGY, 1997, 52 (07) :527-529
[5]   VARIABILITY IN RADIOLOGISTS INTERPRETATIONS OF MAMMOGRAMS [J].
ELMORE, JG ;
WELLS, CK ;
LEE, CH ;
HOWARD, DH ;
FEINSTEIN, AR .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 1994, 331 (22) :1493-1499
[6]   INITIAL VERSUS SUBSEQUENT SCREENING MAMMOGRAPHY - COMPARISON OF FINDINGS AND THEIR PROGNOSTIC-SIGNIFICANCE [J].
FRANKEL, SD ;
SICKLES, EA ;
CURPEN, BN ;
SOLLITTO, RA ;
OMINSKY, SH ;
GALVIN, HB .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 1995, 164 (05) :1107-1109
[7]   THE GENERAL MAMMOGRAPHY SCREENING-PROGRAM IN STOCKHOLM - ORGANIZATION AND FIRST-ROUND RESULTS [J].
LIDBRINK, EK ;
TORNBERG, SA ;
AZAVEDO, EM ;
FRISELL, JO ;
HJALMAR, ML ;
LEIFLAND, KS ;
SAHLSTEDT, TB ;
SKOOG, L .
ACTA ONCOLOGICA, 1994, 33 (04) :353-358
[8]   PERIODIC MAMMOGRAPHIC FOLLOW-UP OF PROBABLY BENIGN LESIONS - RESULTS IN 3,184 CONSECUTIVE CASES [J].
SICKLES, EA .
RADIOLOGY, 1991, 179 (02) :463-468
[9]  
TABAR L, 1992, RADIOL CLIN N AM, V30, P187
[10]  
THURFJELL E, 1995, ACTA RADIOL S395, V36