S1

(0.S%)

aPalpable mass considered present if screenee gave history of palpable mass or if technologist detected palpable mass on a correlative physical examination.

aPalpable mass considered present if screenee gave history of palpable mass or if technologist detected palpable mass on a correlative physical examination.

Table 6.5—Family history of breast cancer among screenees.

Family History

Number of Examinations

None

G7,981

(7G.9%)

Minora

9,900

(11.2%)

Strongb

G,982

(7.9%)

Very strongc

3,483

(3.9%)

aOnly distant relatives with breast cancer.

bFirst-degree relative (mother, sister, daughter) with unilateral postmeno-pausal breast cancer.

cFirst-degree relative with either premenopausal or bilateral breast cancer, or more than one first-degree relative with any breast cancer.

aOnly distant relatives with breast cancer.

bFirst-degree relative (mother, sister, daughter) with unilateral postmeno-pausal breast cancer.

cFirst-degree relative with either premenopausal or bilateral breast cancer, or more than one first-degree relative with any breast cancer.

on women who had undergone prior breast surgery. Slightly more than half of the screening examinations involved women who were >10 percent overweight, based on calculations made from standard height-weight tables (Kowalski, 1987); 12,345 examinations (14 percent) were done on women overweight by 25 to 39 percent, and 12,081 examinations (13.7 percent) involved women overweight by 40 percent or more.

6.3.2.2 Radiologist Demographics. The majority of screening examinations were interpreted by one board-certified diagnostic radiologist who specializes in breast imaging with four other board-certified general diagnostic radiologists reading approximately equal numbers of the remaining cases. An additional board-certified diagnostic radiologist joined the practice 7 y after its inception, having just completed a 1 y breast imaging fellowship.

Table 6.6 indicates the frequency with which each radiologist made abnormal interpretations. Strikingly, fewer examinations were read as being abnormal when prior mammograms were available for comparison, especially if these films came from previous screenings (which were obtained using the same x-ray equipment, mammography technique, and breast positioning procedures). In addition, the most experienced radiologist had the lowest rate of abnormal interpretations, ranging from 6.1 percent for baseline examinations to 2.4 percent for studies that were compared with at least one prior screening examination.

Table 6.6—Frequency of abnormal mammography screening interpretations.a

Radiologist

No Prior Mammograms

Prior Nonscreening

Prior Screeningb

Total

0 0

Post a comment