Korean Journal of Radiology

  • 제18권4호
  • /
  • Pages.624-631
  • /
  • 2017
  • /
  • 1229-6929(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2005-8330(eISSN)
대한영상의학회 (The Korean Society of Radiology)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

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

  • Kim, Young Joong (Department of Radiology, Konyang University Hospital, Konyang University College of Medicine) ;
  • Lee, Eun Hye (Department of Radiology, Bucheon Hospital, Soonchunhyang University College of Medicine) ;
  • Jun, Jae Kwan (National Cancer Control Institute, National Cancer Center) ;
  • Shin, Dong-Rock (Department of Radiology, Gangneung Asan Hospital, University of Ulsan College of Medicine) ;
  • Park, Young Mi (Department of Radiology, Busan Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine) ;
  • Kim, Hye-Won (Department of Radiology, Wonkwang University Hospital, Wonkwang University School of Medicine) ;
  • Kim, Youme (Department of Radiology, Dankook University Hospital, Dankook University College of Medicine) ;
  • Kim, Keum Won (Department of Radiology, Konyang University Hospital, Konyang University College of Medicine) ;
  • Lim, Hyo Soon (Department of Radiology, Chonnam National University Hwasun Hospital, Chonnam National University College of Medicine) ;
  • Park, Jeong Seon (Department of Radiology, Hanyang University Hospital, Hanyang University College of Medicine) ;
  • Kim, Hye Jung (Department of Radiology, Kyungpook National University Medical Center, Kyungpook National University College of Medicine) ;
  • Jo, Hye-Mi (National Cancer Control Institute, National Cancer Center) ;
  • Alliance for Breast Cancer Screening in Korea (ABCS-K) (Alliance for Breast Cancer Screening in Korea (ABCS-K))
  • 투고 : 2016.10.19
  • 심사 : 2016.12.27
  • 발행 : 2017.08.01
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Objective: To analyze participant factors that affect the diagnostic performance of screening mammography. Materials and Methods: We 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. Results: Increasing 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). Conclusion: Young 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.

키워드

과제정보

연구 과제 주관 기관 : Ministry of Health & Welfare

참고문헌

  1. Humphrey LL, Helfand M, Chan BK, Woolf SH. Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2002;137(5 Part 1):347-360 https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-137-5_Part_1-200209030-00012
  2. Ballard-Barbash R, Taplin SH, Yankaskas BC, Ernster VL, Rosenberg RD, Carney PA, et al. Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium: a national mammography screening and outcomes database. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997;169:1001-1008 https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.169.4.9308451
  3. Elmore JG, Jackson SL, Abraham L, Miglioretti DL, Carney PA, Geller BM, et al. Variability in interpretive performance at screening mammography and radiologists' characteristics associated with accuracy. Radiology 2009;253:641-651 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2533082308
  4. Carney PA, Sickles EA, Monsees BS, Bassett LW, Brenner RJ, Feig SA, et al. Identifying minimally acceptable interpretive performance criteria for screening mammography. Radiology 2010;255:354-361 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.10091636
  5. Carney PA, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC, Kerlikowske K, Rosenberg R, Rutter CM, et al. Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med 2003;138:168-175 https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-138-3-200302040-00008
  6. Rosenberg RD, Yankaskas BC, Abraham LA, Sickles EA, Lehman CD, Geller BM, et al. Performance benchmarks for screening mammography. Radiology 2006;241:55-66 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2411051504
  7. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, Sickles EA, Ernster V. Effect of age, breast density, and family history on the sensitivity of first screening mammography. JAMA 1996;276:33-38 https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1996.03540010035027
  8. Kerlikowske K, Zhu W, Hubbard RA, Geller B, Dittus K, Braithwaite D, et al. Outcomes of screening mammography by frequency, breast density, and postmenopausal hormone therapy. JAMA Intern Med 2013;173:807-816 https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.307
  9. Sickles EA, Wolverton DE, Dee KE. Performance parameters for screening and diagnostic mammography: specialist and general radiologists. Radiology 2002;224:861-869 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2243011482
  10. Suh M, Choi KS, Park B, Lee YY, Jun JK, Lee DH, et al. Trends in cancer screening rates among Korean men and women: results of the Korean National Cancer Screening Survey, 2004-2013. Cancer Res Treat 2016;48:1-10 https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2014.204
  11. Lee EH, Kim KW, Kim YJ, Shin DR, Park YM, Lim HS, et al. Performance of screening mammography: a report of the alliance for breast cancer screening in Korea. Korean J Radiol 2016;17:489-496 https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2016.17.4.489
  12. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. Radiology 2002;225:165-175 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2251011667
  13. Laya MB, Larson EB, Taplin SH, White E. Effect of estrogen replacement therapy on the specificity and sensitivity of screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst 1996;88:643-649 https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/88.10.643
  14. D'Orsi CJ, Bassett LW, Berg WA, Feig SA, Jackson VP, Kopans DB, et al. BI-RADS: mammography. In: D'Orsi CJ, Mendelson EB, Ikeda DM, eds. $BIRADS^{(R)}$ breast imaging reporting and data system: breast imaging atlas, 4th ed. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 2003
  15. Park SK, Kang D, Kim Y, Yoo KY. Epidemiologic characteristics of the breast cancer in Korea. J Korean Med Assoc 2009;52:937-945 https://doi.org/10.5124/jkma.2009.52.10.937
  16. Murphy IG, Dillon MF, Doherty AO, McDermott EW, Kelly G, O'Higgins N, et al. Analysis of patients with false negative mammography and symptomatic breast carcinoma. J Surg Oncol 2007;96:457-463 https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.20801
  17. Mandelson MT, Oestreicher N, Porter PL, White D, Finder CA, Taplin SH, et al. Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screendetected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:1081-1087 https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/92.13.1081
  18. Checka CM, Chun JE, Schnabel FR, Lee J, Toth H. The relationship of mammographic density and age: implications for breast cancer screening. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012;198:W292-W295 https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.11.7594
  19. Tabar L, Fagerberg G, Chen HH, Duffy SW, Smart CR, Gad A, et al. Efficacy of breast cancer screening by age. New results from the Swedish Two-County Trial. Cancer 1995;75:2507-2517 https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(19950515)75:10<2507::AID-CNCR2820751017>3.0.CO;2-H
  20. Brekelmans CT, Collette HJ, Collette C, Fracheboud J, de Waard F. Breast cancer after a negative screen: follow-up of women participating in the DOM Screening Programme. Eur J Cancer 1992;28A:893-895
  21. Suzuki A, Kuriyama S, Kawai M, Amari M, Takeda M, Ishida T, et al. Age-specific interval breast cancers in Japan: estimation of the proper sensitivity of screening using a population-based cancer registry. Cancer Sci 2008;99:2264-2267 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1349-7006.2008.00926.x
  22. Boyd NF, Guo H, Martin LJ, Sun L, Stone J, Fishell E, et al. Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2007;356:227-236 https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa062790
  23. Harvey JA, Bovbjerg VE. Quantitative assessment of mammographic breast density: relationship with breast cancer risk. Radiology 2004;230:29-41 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2301020870
  24. Roelofs AA, Karssemeijer N, Wedekind N, Beck C, van Woudenberg S, Snoeren PR, et al. Importance of comparison of current and prior mammograms in breast cancer screening. Radiology 2007;242:70-77 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2421050684
  25. Wang WL, Hsu SD, Wang JH, Huang LC, Hsu WL. Survey of breast cancer mammography screening behaviors in Eastern Taiwan based on a health belief model. Kaohsiung J Med Sci 2014;30:422-427 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kjms.2014.04.007
  26. Moodi M, Rezaeian M, Mostafavi F, Sharifirad GR. Determinants of mammography screening behavior in Iranian women: a population-based study. J Res Med Sci 2012;17:750-759
  27. Juon HS, Kim M, Shankar S, Han W. Predictors of adherence to screening mammography among Korean American women. Prev Med 2004;39:474-481 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2004.05.006
  28. Kim SA, Chang JM, Cho N, Yi A, Moon WK. Characterization of breast lesions: comparison of digital breast tomosynthesis and ultrasonography. Korean J Radiol 2015;16:229-238 https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2015.16.2.229

피인용 문헌

  1. Age of Data in Contemporary Research Articles Published in Representative General Radiology Journals vol.19, pp.6, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2018.19.6.1172
  2. Effect of Different Types of Mammography Equipment on Screening Outcomes: A Report by the Alliance for Breast Cancer Screening in Korea vol.20, pp.12, 2017, https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2019.0006
  3. Interpretive Performance and Inter-Observer Agreement on Digital Mammography Test Sets vol.20, pp.2, 2019, https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2018.0193
  4. Five-Year Overall Survival of Interval Breast Cancers is Better than Non- Interval Cancers from Korean Breast Cancer Registry vol.20, pp.6, 2017, https://doi.org/10.31557/apjcp.2019.20.6.1717
  5. Prevalence of Women with Dense Breasts in Korea: Results from a Nationwide Cross-sectional Study vol.51, pp.4, 2017, https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2018.297
  6. Automated Breast Ultrasound Screening for Dense Breasts vol.21, pp.1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2019.0176
  7. Effectiveness of the Korean National Cancer Screening Program in reducing breast cancer mortality vol.7, pp.1, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41523-021-00295-9