Performance Benchmarks for Screening Breast MR Imaging in Community Practice

Purpose To compare screening magnetic resonance (MR) imaging performance in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) with Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) benchmarks. Materials and Methods This study was approved by the institutional review board and compliant with HIPAA an...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Radiology 2017-10, Vol.285 (1), p.44-52
Hauptverfasser: Lee, Janie M, Ichikawa, Laura, Valencia, Elizabeth, Miglioretti, Diana L, Wernli, Karen, Buist, Diana S M, Kerlikowske, Karla, Henderson, Louise M, Sprague, Brian L, Onega, Tracy, Rauscher, Garth H, Lehman, Constance D
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 52
container_issue 1
container_start_page 44
container_title Radiology
container_volume 285
creator Lee, Janie M
Ichikawa, Laura
Valencia, Elizabeth
Miglioretti, Diana L
Wernli, Karen
Buist, Diana S M
Kerlikowske, Karla
Henderson, Louise M
Sprague, Brian L
Onega, Tracy
Rauscher, Garth H
Lehman, Constance D
description Purpose To compare screening magnetic resonance (MR) imaging performance in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) with Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) benchmarks. Materials and Methods This study was approved by the institutional review board and compliant with HIPAA and included BCSC screening MR examinations collected between 2005 and 2013 from 5343 women (8387 MR examinations) linked to regional Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program registries, state tumor registries, and pathologic information databases that identified breast cancer cases and tumor characteristics. Clinical, demographic, and imaging characteristics were assessed. Performance measures were calculated according to BI-RADS fifth edition and included cancer detection rate (CDR), positive predictive value of biopsy recommendation (PPV ), sensitivity, and specificity. Results The median patient age was 52 years; 52% of MR examinations were performed in women with a first-degree family history of breast cancer, 46% in women with a personal history of breast cancer, and 15% in women with both risk factors. Screening MR imaging depicted 146 cancers, and 35 interval cancers were identified (181 total-54 in situ, 125 invasive, and two status unknown). The CDR was 17 per 1000 screening examinations (95% confidence interval [CI]: 15, 20 per 1000 screening examinations; BI-RADS benchmark, 20-30 per 1000 screening examinations). PPV was 19% (95% CI: 16%, 22%; benchmark, 15%). Sensitivity was 81% (95% CI: 75%, 86%; benchmark, >80%), and specificity was 83% (95% CI: 82%, 84%; benchmark, 85%-90%). The median tumor size of invasive cancers was 10 mm; 88% were node negative. Conclusion The interpretative performance of screening MR imaging in the BCSC meets most BI-RADS benchmarks and approaches benchmark levels for remaining measures. Clinical practice performance data can inform ongoing benchmark development and help identify areas for quality improvement. RSNA, 2017.
doi_str_mv 10.1148/radiol.2017162033
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5621720</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1906468190</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c399t-decc1768c0c92a27b2665d65082ca633d1cd881592e3e43da8d7006c2d5f4f683</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpVUctOwzAQtBAISuEDuKAcuQS8duw4FySoeElFVDzOlrE3xZA4YKdI_D2pyvO00uzM7GiHkD2ghwCFOorG-a45ZBRKkIxyvkZGIFiZAwexTkZ0gHJVQLVFtlN6phQKocpNssWUUExyPiLTGca6i60JFrNTDPapNfElZQOW3dmIGHyYZ6cRTeqz69vsqjXzJeJDNunadhF8_5HNorG9t7hDNmrTJNz9mmPycH52P7nMpzcXV5OTaW55VfW5Q2uhlMpSWzHDykcmpXBSUMWsGVI5sE4pEBVDjgV3RrmSUmmZE3VRS8XH5Hjl-7p4bNFZDH00jX6Nfgj_oTvj9f9N8E963r1rIRmUw6PG5ODLIHZvC0y9bn2y2DQmYLdIGioqC6mGMVBhRbWxSyli_XMGqF62oFct6N8WBs3-33w_iu-380--gIUU</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1906468190</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Performance Benchmarks for Screening Breast MR Imaging in Community Practice</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><creator>Lee, Janie M ; Ichikawa, Laura ; Valencia, Elizabeth ; Miglioretti, Diana L ; Wernli, Karen ; Buist, Diana S M ; Kerlikowske, Karla ; Henderson, Louise M ; Sprague, Brian L ; Onega, Tracy ; Rauscher, Garth H ; Lehman, Constance D</creator><creatorcontrib>Lee, Janie M ; Ichikawa, Laura ; Valencia, Elizabeth ; Miglioretti, Diana L ; Wernli, Karen ; Buist, Diana S M ; Kerlikowske, Karla ; Henderson, Louise M ; Sprague, Brian L ; Onega, Tracy ; Rauscher, Garth H ; Lehman, Constance D</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose To compare screening magnetic resonance (MR) imaging performance in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) with Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) benchmarks. Materials and Methods This study was approved by the institutional review board and compliant with HIPAA and included BCSC screening MR examinations collected between 2005 and 2013 from 5343 women (8387 MR examinations) linked to regional Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program registries, state tumor registries, and pathologic information databases that identified breast cancer cases and tumor characteristics. Clinical, demographic, and imaging characteristics were assessed. Performance measures were calculated according to BI-RADS fifth edition and included cancer detection rate (CDR), positive predictive value of biopsy recommendation (PPV ), sensitivity, and specificity. Results The median patient age was 52 years; 52% of MR examinations were performed in women with a first-degree family history of breast cancer, 46% in women with a personal history of breast cancer, and 15% in women with both risk factors. Screening MR imaging depicted 146 cancers, and 35 interval cancers were identified (181 total-54 in situ, 125 invasive, and two status unknown). The CDR was 17 per 1000 screening examinations (95% confidence interval [CI]: 15, 20 per 1000 screening examinations; BI-RADS benchmark, 20-30 per 1000 screening examinations). PPV was 19% (95% CI: 16%, 22%; benchmark, 15%). Sensitivity was 81% (95% CI: 75%, 86%; benchmark, &gt;80%), and specificity was 83% (95% CI: 82%, 84%; benchmark, 85%-90%). The median tumor size of invasive cancers was 10 mm; 88% were node negative. Conclusion The interpretative performance of screening MR imaging in the BCSC meets most BI-RADS benchmarks and approaches benchmark levels for remaining measures. Clinical practice performance data can inform ongoing benchmark development and help identify areas for quality improvement. RSNA, 2017.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0033-8419</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1527-1315</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2017162033</identifier><identifier>PMID: 28582633</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Radiological Society of North America</publisher><subject>Benchmarking ; Breast - diagnostic imaging ; Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging ; Cohort Studies ; Early Detection of Cancer - standards ; Early Detection of Cancer - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Female ; Humans ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging - standards ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Middle Aged ; Original Research ; Predictive Value of Tests</subject><ispartof>Radiology, 2017-10, Vol.285 (1), p.44-52</ispartof><rights>2017 by the Radiological Society of North America, Inc. 2017</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c399t-decc1768c0c92a27b2665d65082ca633d1cd881592e3e43da8d7006c2d5f4f683</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c399t-decc1768c0c92a27b2665d65082ca633d1cd881592e3e43da8d7006c2d5f4f683</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28582633$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Lee, Janie M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ichikawa, Laura</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Valencia, Elizabeth</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Miglioretti, Diana L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wernli, Karen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Buist, Diana S M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kerlikowske, Karla</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Henderson, Louise M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sprague, Brian L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Onega, Tracy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rauscher, Garth H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lehman, Constance D</creatorcontrib><title>Performance Benchmarks for Screening Breast MR Imaging in Community Practice</title><title>Radiology</title><addtitle>Radiology</addtitle><description>Purpose To compare screening magnetic resonance (MR) imaging performance in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) with Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) benchmarks. Materials and Methods This study was approved by the institutional review board and compliant with HIPAA and included BCSC screening MR examinations collected between 2005 and 2013 from 5343 women (8387 MR examinations) linked to regional Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program registries, state tumor registries, and pathologic information databases that identified breast cancer cases and tumor characteristics. Clinical, demographic, and imaging characteristics were assessed. Performance measures were calculated according to BI-RADS fifth edition and included cancer detection rate (CDR), positive predictive value of biopsy recommendation (PPV ), sensitivity, and specificity. Results The median patient age was 52 years; 52% of MR examinations were performed in women with a first-degree family history of breast cancer, 46% in women with a personal history of breast cancer, and 15% in women with both risk factors. Screening MR imaging depicted 146 cancers, and 35 interval cancers were identified (181 total-54 in situ, 125 invasive, and two status unknown). The CDR was 17 per 1000 screening examinations (95% confidence interval [CI]: 15, 20 per 1000 screening examinations; BI-RADS benchmark, 20-30 per 1000 screening examinations). PPV was 19% (95% CI: 16%, 22%; benchmark, 15%). Sensitivity was 81% (95% CI: 75%, 86%; benchmark, &gt;80%), and specificity was 83% (95% CI: 82%, 84%; benchmark, 85%-90%). The median tumor size of invasive cancers was 10 mm; 88% were node negative. Conclusion The interpretative performance of screening MR imaging in the BCSC meets most BI-RADS benchmarks and approaches benchmark levels for remaining measures. Clinical practice performance data can inform ongoing benchmark development and help identify areas for quality improvement. RSNA, 2017.</description><subject>Benchmarking</subject><subject>Breast - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Cohort Studies</subject><subject>Early Detection of Cancer - standards</subject><subject>Early Detection of Cancer - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Magnetic Resonance Imaging - standards</subject><subject>Magnetic Resonance Imaging - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Original Research</subject><subject>Predictive Value of Tests</subject><issn>0033-8419</issn><issn>1527-1315</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpVUctOwzAQtBAISuEDuKAcuQS8duw4FySoeElFVDzOlrE3xZA4YKdI_D2pyvO00uzM7GiHkD2ghwCFOorG-a45ZBRKkIxyvkZGIFiZAwexTkZ0gHJVQLVFtlN6phQKocpNssWUUExyPiLTGca6i60JFrNTDPapNfElZQOW3dmIGHyYZ6cRTeqz69vsqjXzJeJDNunadhF8_5HNorG9t7hDNmrTJNz9mmPycH52P7nMpzcXV5OTaW55VfW5Q2uhlMpSWzHDykcmpXBSUMWsGVI5sE4pEBVDjgV3RrmSUmmZE3VRS8XH5Hjl-7p4bNFZDH00jX6Nfgj_oTvj9f9N8E963r1rIRmUw6PG5ODLIHZvC0y9bn2y2DQmYLdIGioqC6mGMVBhRbWxSyli_XMGqF62oFct6N8WBs3-33w_iu-380--gIUU</recordid><startdate>20171001</startdate><enddate>20171001</enddate><creator>Lee, Janie M</creator><creator>Ichikawa, Laura</creator><creator>Valencia, Elizabeth</creator><creator>Miglioretti, Diana L</creator><creator>Wernli, Karen</creator><creator>Buist, Diana S M</creator><creator>Kerlikowske, Karla</creator><creator>Henderson, Louise M</creator><creator>Sprague, Brian L</creator><creator>Onega, Tracy</creator><creator>Rauscher, Garth H</creator><creator>Lehman, Constance D</creator><general>Radiological Society of North America</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20171001</creationdate><title>Performance Benchmarks for Screening Breast MR Imaging in Community Practice</title><author>Lee, Janie M ; Ichikawa, Laura ; Valencia, Elizabeth ; Miglioretti, Diana L ; Wernli, Karen ; Buist, Diana S M ; Kerlikowske, Karla ; Henderson, Louise M ; Sprague, Brian L ; Onega, Tracy ; Rauscher, Garth H ; Lehman, Constance D</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c399t-decc1768c0c92a27b2665d65082ca633d1cd881592e3e43da8d7006c2d5f4f683</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Benchmarking</topic><topic>Breast - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Cohort Studies</topic><topic>Early Detection of Cancer - standards</topic><topic>Early Detection of Cancer - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Magnetic Resonance Imaging - standards</topic><topic>Magnetic Resonance Imaging - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Original Research</topic><topic>Predictive Value of Tests</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Lee, Janie M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ichikawa, Laura</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Valencia, Elizabeth</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Miglioretti, Diana L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wernli, Karen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Buist, Diana S M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kerlikowske, Karla</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Henderson, Louise M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sprague, Brian L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Onega, Tracy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rauscher, Garth H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lehman, Constance D</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Radiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Lee, Janie M</au><au>Ichikawa, Laura</au><au>Valencia, Elizabeth</au><au>Miglioretti, Diana L</au><au>Wernli, Karen</au><au>Buist, Diana S M</au><au>Kerlikowske, Karla</au><au>Henderson, Louise M</au><au>Sprague, Brian L</au><au>Onega, Tracy</au><au>Rauscher, Garth H</au><au>Lehman, Constance D</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Performance Benchmarks for Screening Breast MR Imaging in Community Practice</atitle><jtitle>Radiology</jtitle><addtitle>Radiology</addtitle><date>2017-10-01</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>285</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>44</spage><epage>52</epage><pages>44-52</pages><issn>0033-8419</issn><eissn>1527-1315</eissn><abstract>Purpose To compare screening magnetic resonance (MR) imaging performance in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) with Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) benchmarks. Materials and Methods This study was approved by the institutional review board and compliant with HIPAA and included BCSC screening MR examinations collected between 2005 and 2013 from 5343 women (8387 MR examinations) linked to regional Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program registries, state tumor registries, and pathologic information databases that identified breast cancer cases and tumor characteristics. Clinical, demographic, and imaging characteristics were assessed. Performance measures were calculated according to BI-RADS fifth edition and included cancer detection rate (CDR), positive predictive value of biopsy recommendation (PPV ), sensitivity, and specificity. Results The median patient age was 52 years; 52% of MR examinations were performed in women with a first-degree family history of breast cancer, 46% in women with a personal history of breast cancer, and 15% in women with both risk factors. Screening MR imaging depicted 146 cancers, and 35 interval cancers were identified (181 total-54 in situ, 125 invasive, and two status unknown). The CDR was 17 per 1000 screening examinations (95% confidence interval [CI]: 15, 20 per 1000 screening examinations; BI-RADS benchmark, 20-30 per 1000 screening examinations). PPV was 19% (95% CI: 16%, 22%; benchmark, 15%). Sensitivity was 81% (95% CI: 75%, 86%; benchmark, &gt;80%), and specificity was 83% (95% CI: 82%, 84%; benchmark, 85%-90%). The median tumor size of invasive cancers was 10 mm; 88% were node negative. Conclusion The interpretative performance of screening MR imaging in the BCSC meets most BI-RADS benchmarks and approaches benchmark levels for remaining measures. Clinical practice performance data can inform ongoing benchmark development and help identify areas for quality improvement. RSNA, 2017.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Radiological Society of North America</pub><pmid>28582633</pmid><doi>10.1148/radiol.2017162033</doi><tpages>9</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0033-8419
ispartof Radiology, 2017-10, Vol.285 (1), p.44-52
issn 0033-8419
1527-1315
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5621720
source MEDLINE; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals
subjects Benchmarking
Breast - diagnostic imaging
Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging
Cohort Studies
Early Detection of Cancer - standards
Early Detection of Cancer - statistics & numerical data
Female
Humans
Magnetic Resonance Imaging - standards
Magnetic Resonance Imaging - statistics & numerical data
Middle Aged
Original Research
Predictive Value of Tests
title Performance Benchmarks for Screening Breast MR Imaging in Community Practice
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-02T17%3A36%3A29IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Performance%20Benchmarks%20for%20Screening%20Breast%20MR%20Imaging%20in%20Community%20Practice&rft.jtitle=Radiology&rft.au=Lee,%20Janie%20M&rft.date=2017-10-01&rft.volume=285&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=44&rft.epage=52&rft.pages=44-52&rft.issn=0033-8419&rft.eissn=1527-1315&rft_id=info:doi/10.1148/radiol.2017162033&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E1906468190%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1906468190&rft_id=info:pmid/28582633&rfr_iscdi=true