Ke. Dee et Ea. Sickles, Medical audit of diagnostic mammography examinations: Comparison with screening outcomes obtained concurrently, AM J ROENTG, 176(3), 2001, pp. 729-733
Citations number
26
Categorie Soggetti
Radiology ,Nuclear Medicine & Imaging","Medical Research Diagnosis & Treatment
OBJECTIVE. We performed a medical audit of our diagnostic mammography pract
ice and compared clinical outcomes with those of screening mammography exam
inations performed concurrently.
MATERIALS AND METHODS. We analyzed 46,857 consecutive mammography examinati
ons (10,007 diagnostic, 36,850 screening) from 1997 to 2000. including data
on demographics. image interpretation, and biopsy (including size. nodal s
tatus, and cancer stage).
RESULTS. The mean age at diagnostic mammography was 55.8 years (mean age at
screening mammogram, 59.1 years: p < 0.0001). Among patients who underwent
diagnostic examinations. 14.7% had a strong or very strong family history
of breast cancer (screening, 11.6%: p < 0.0001). Examination findings were
interpreted as abnormal in 14.4% (screening, 5.2%; p < 0.0001). Biopsy was
performed in 11.9% (screening. 1.4%; p < 0.0001). Forty-six percent of the
biopsies were positive for malignancy (screening, 38%: p < 0.0001), The can
cer detection rate was 55 per 1000 (screening, 5/1000; p < 0.0001). Of canc
ers found, 74.3% were stage 0 or I (screening, 89.3%; p < 0.0001), average
size was 18.0 mm (screening, 12.9 mm: p < 0.0001), and axillary nodes were
positive for malignancy in 19.9% of invasive cancers (screening, 6.3; p < 0
.0001), Differences between diagnostic and screening outcomes were attribut
able predominantly to the subgroup of diagnostic examinations performed for
evaluation of palpable masses.
CONCLUSION. Medical auditing of diagnostic mammography examinations yields
substantially different results compared with those of screening examinatio
ns, including different patient demographics: higher number of positive bio
psies; higher cancer detection rates; and larger, more advanced-stage cance
rs. Diagnostic and screening data should be segregated during auditing, or
if this is not possible, analysis of combined results should be based on kn
own differences between diagnostic and screening outcomes.