| Title |
Diagnostic imaging and biopsy pathways following abnormal screen-film and digital screening mammography
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, March 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10549-013-2466-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rebecca A. Hubbard, Weiwei Zhu, Ruslan Horblyuk, Leah Karliner, Brian L. Sprague, Louise Henderson, David Lee, Tracy Onega, Diana S. M. Buist, Alison Sweet |
| Abstract |
The transition from screen-film to digital mammography may have altered diagnostic evaluation of women following a positive screening examination. This study compared the use and timeliness of diagnostic imaging and biopsy for women screened with screen-film or digital mammography. Data were obtained from 35,321 positive screening mammograms on 32,087 women aged 40-89 years, from 22 breast cancer surveillance consortium facilities in 2005-2008. Diagnostic pathways were classified by their inclusion of diagnostic mammography, ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, and biopsy. We compared time to resolution and frequency of diagnostic pathways by patient characteristics, screening exam modality, and radiology facility. Between-facility differences were evaluated by computing the proportion of mammograms receiving follow-up with a particular pathway for each facility and examining variation in these proportions across facilities. Multinomial logistic regression adjusting for age, calendar year, and facility compared odds of follow-up with each pathway. The median time to resolution of a positive screening mammogram was 10 days. Compared to screen-film mammograms, digital mammograms were more frequently followed by only a single diagnostic mammogram (46 vs. 36 %). Pathways following digital screening mammography were also less likely to include biopsy (16 vs. 20 %). However, in adjusted analyses, most differences were not statistically significant (p = 0.857 for mammography only; p = 0.03 for biopsy). Substantial variability in diagnostic pathway frequency was seen across facilities. For instance, the frequency of evaluation with diagnostic mammography alone ranged from 23 to 55 % across facilities. Differences in evaluation of positive digital and screen-film screening mammograms were minor, and appeared to be largely attributable to substantial variation between radiology facilities. To guide health systems in their efforts to eliminate practices that do not contribute to effective care, we need further research to identify the causes of this variation and the best evidence-based approach for follow-up. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 25 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 20% |
| Researcher | 5 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 16% |
| Professor | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Unknown | 7 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 32% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 16% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 4% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 1 | 4% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 10 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 June 2013.
All research outputs
#17,689,573
of 22,711,645 outputs
Outputs from Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
#3,544
of 4,619 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#142,298
of 195,229 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
#44
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,711,645 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,619 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 195,229 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.