RetroSearch Browse

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26866649/ below:

The National Mammography Database: Preliminary Data

. 2016 Apr;206(4):883-90. doi: 10.2214/AJR.15.14312. Epub 2016 Feb 11. The National Mammography Database: Preliminary Data

Affiliations

¹ 1 Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, 505 Parnassus Ave, Rm L374, San Francisco, CA 94143-0628.
² 2 American College of Radiology, Reston, VA.
³ 3 Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI.
⁴ 4 Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD.

PMID: 26866649
DOI: 10.2214/AJR.15.14312

Item in Clipboard

The National Mammography Database: Preliminary Data

Cindy S Lee et al. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016 Apr.

. 2016 Apr;206(4):883-90. doi: 10.2214/AJR.15.14312. Epub 2016 Feb 11. Affiliations

¹ 1 Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, 505 Parnassus Ave, Rm L374, San Francisco, CA 94143-0628.
² 2 American College of Radiology, Reston, VA.
³ 3 Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI.
⁴ 4 Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD.

PMID: 26866649
DOI: 10.2214/AJR.15.14312

Item in Clipboard

Abstract

Objective: The purposes of our study were to analyze screening mammography data submitted to the National Mammography Database (NMD) since its inception to confirm data collection feasibility, to draw parallels to data from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC), and to examine trends over time. We also retrospectively evaluated practice-level variation in terms of practice type, practice setting, census region, and annual volume.

Materials and methods: Data from 90 mammography facilities in the NMD registry were analyzed. The registry receives mammography data collected as part of standard clinical practice, including self-reported demographic information, clinical findings, screening mammography interpretation, and biopsy results. Outcome metrics calculated were cancer detection rate, recall rate, and positive predictive values for biopsy recommended (PPV2) and biopsy performed (PPV3).

Results: The NMD successfully collected and analyzed data for 3,181,437 screening mammograms performed between January 2008 and December 2012. Mean values for outcomes were cancer detection rate of 3.43 per 1000 (95% CI, 3.2-3.7), recall rate of 10% (95% CI, 9.3-10.7%), PPV2 of 18.5% (95% CI, 16.7-20.2%), and PPV3 of 29.2% (95% CI, 26.2-32.3%). No statistically significant difference was seen in performance measurements on the basis of practice type, practice setting, census region, or annual volume. NMD performance measurements parallel those reported by the BCSC.

Conclusion: The NMD has become the fastest growing mammography registry in the United States, providing nationwide performance metrics and permitting comparison with published benchmarks. Our study shows the feasibility of using the NMD to audit mammography facilities and to provide current, ongoing benchmark data.

Keywords: medical auditing; national mammography database; performance benchmarks; screening mammography.

PubMed Disclaimer