Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology 3/2010

01-10-2010 | American Society of Breast Surgeons

Surgeon-Read Screening Mammography: An Analysis of 11,948 Examinations

Authors: Justus P. Apffelstaedt, FCS (SA), Veronica Steenkamp, MBChB, Karin J. Baatjes, FCS (SA)

Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology | Special Issue 3/2010

Login to get access

Abstract

Introduction

Mammography was pioneered by surgeons but is now the domain of radiologists. With ever-increasing cost pressures it must be examined whether interpretation of mammography by clinicians and radiation technologists is comparable to that of breast radiologists. We present the largest series of surgeon-read screening mammography to date.

Methods

All mammography performed between 2003 and 2009 at a comprehensive breast centre was recorded prospectively. First assessment was by a radiation technologist and consensus established after second reading by a breast surgeon, who took responsibility for the reading. Data recorded were: age, hormonal replacement therapy, prior breast surgery, indications for mammography and outcomes. Outcomes were classified based using the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BIRADS). Indeterminate lesions were imaged further or underwent tissue acquisition. All BIRADS 5 lesions underwent tissue acquisition.

Results

Of 11,948 mammograms, 538 were reported as indeterminate/compatible with malignancy; 240 biopsies were performed, and 87 cancers diagnosed. In 40–49-year-old women (4,956 mammograms), the recall rate was 4.2%, the biopsy rate was 1.6%, the malignancy rate of biopsy was 23.7% and the cancer diagnosis rate was 3.6/1,000 examinations; for 50–69-year-old women these figures were 6,546, 4.7, 2.2, 44.1% and 10.0/1,000, respectively, and in women older than 70 years, they were 446, 5.6, 3.4, 33.3% and 11.2/1,000, respectively. Of all cancers, 32.2% were non-invasive; of invasive cancers, 49.1% were 10 mm or less in diameter and 75% were node negative.

Conclusions

These results are similar to those in high-quality organized screening programs. The role of breast surgeons in mammography interpretation should be expanded.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Gold RH, Bassett LW, Widoff BE. Highlights from the history of mammography. Radiographics. 1990;10(6):1111–31.PubMed Gold RH, Bassett LW, Widoff BE. Highlights from the history of mammography. Radiographics. 1990;10(6):1111–31.PubMed
2.
go back to reference Burns RP, Brown JP, Roe SM, Sprouse LR, Yancey AE, Witherspoon LE. Stereotactic core-needle breast biopsy by surgeons: minimum 2-year follow-up of benign lesions. Ann Surg. 2000;232(4):542–8.CrossRefPubMed Burns RP, Brown JP, Roe SM, Sprouse LR, Yancey AE, Witherspoon LE. Stereotactic core-needle breast biopsy by surgeons: minimum 2-year follow-up of benign lesions. Ann Surg. 2000;232(4):542–8.CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Rao MC, Griffith CD, Griffiths AB. Can breast surgeons read mammograms of symptomatic patients in the one-stop breast clinic? Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2001;83(2):108–9.PubMed Rao MC, Griffith CD, Griffiths AB. Can breast surgeons read mammograms of symptomatic patients in the one-stop breast clinic? Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2001;83(2):108–9.PubMed
4.
go back to reference Sterns EE. Changing emphasis in breast diagnosis: the surgeon’s role in evaluating mammographic abnormalities. J Am Coll Surg. 1997;184(3):297–302.PubMed Sterns EE. Changing emphasis in breast diagnosis: the surgeon’s role in evaluating mammographic abnormalities. J Am Coll Surg. 1997;184(3):297–302.PubMed
5.
go back to reference Stolier AJ. Stereotactic breast biopsy: a surgical series. J Am Coll Surg. 1997;185(3):224–8.PubMed Stolier AJ. Stereotactic breast biopsy: a surgical series. J Am Coll Surg. 1997;185(3):224–8.PubMed
6.
go back to reference Vidya R, Dixon JM. Should surgeons as well as radiologists report mammograms in symptomatic patients? Breast. 2001;10(2):140–2.CrossRefPubMed Vidya R, Dixon JM. Should surgeons as well as radiologists report mammograms in symptomatic patients? Breast. 2001;10(2):140–2.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Wivell G, Denton ER, Eve CB, Inglis JC, Harvey I. Can radiographers read screening mammograms? Clin Radiol. 2003;58(1):63–7.CrossRefPubMed Wivell G, Denton ER, Eve CB, Inglis JC, Harvey I. Can radiographers read screening mammograms? Clin Radiol. 2003;58(1):63–7.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Tonita JM, Hillis JP, Lim CH. Medical radiologic technologist review: effects on a population-based breast cancer screening program. Radiology. 1999;211(2):529–33.PubMed Tonita JM, Hillis JP, Lim CH. Medical radiologic technologist review: effects on a population-based breast cancer screening program. Radiology. 1999;211(2):529–33.PubMed
9.
go back to reference Pauli R, Hammond S, Cooke J, Ansell J. Radiographers as film readers in screening mammography: an assessment of competence under test and screening conditions. Br J Radiol. 1996;69(817):10–4.CrossRefPubMed Pauli R, Hammond S, Cooke J, Ansell J. Radiographers as film readers in screening mammography: an assessment of competence under test and screening conditions. Br J Radiol. 1996;69(817):10–4.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Pauli R, Hammond S, Cooke J, Ansell J. Comparison of radiographer/radiologist double film reading with single reading in breast cancer screening. J Med Screen. 1996;3(1):18–22.PubMed Pauli R, Hammond S, Cooke J, Ansell J. Comparison of radiographer/radiologist double film reading with single reading in breast cancer screening. J Med Screen. 1996;3(1):18–22.PubMed
11.
go back to reference Haiart DC, Henderson J. A comparison of interpretation of screening mammograms by a radiographer, a doctor and a radiologist: results and implications. Br J Clin Pract. 1991;45(1):43–5.PubMed Haiart DC, Henderson J. A comparison of interpretation of screening mammograms by a radiographer, a doctor and a radiologist: results and implications. Br J Clin Pract. 1991;45(1):43–5.PubMed
12.
go back to reference Duijm LE, Groenewoud JH, Fracheboud J, van Ineveld BM, Roumen RM, de Koning HJ. Introduction of additional double reading of mammograms by radiographers: effects on a biennial screening programme outcome. Eur J Cancer. 2008;44(9):1223–8.CrossRefPubMed Duijm LE, Groenewoud JH, Fracheboud J, van Ineveld BM, Roumen RM, de Koning HJ. Introduction of additional double reading of mammograms by radiographers: effects on a biennial screening programme outcome. Eur J Cancer. 2008;44(9):1223–8.CrossRefPubMed
13.
14.
go back to reference Dixon JM. Screening for breast cancer. Randomized trials testify to benefit. BMJ. 1994;308(6922):201–2.PubMed Dixon JM. Screening for breast cancer. Randomized trials testify to benefit. BMJ. 1994;308(6922):201–2.PubMed
16.
go back to reference Duffy SW, Tabar L, Chen THH, Smith RA, Holmberg L, Jonsson H, et al. Reduction in breast cancer mortality from organized service screening with mammography: 1. Further confirmation with extended data. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006;15(1):45–51.CrossRef Duffy SW, Tabar L, Chen THH, Smith RA, Holmberg L, Jonsson H, et al. Reduction in breast cancer mortality from organized service screening with mammography: 1. Further confirmation with extended data. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006;15(1):45–51.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Feig SA. Screening mammography: a successful public health initiative. Revista Panamericana de Salud Publica-Pan Am J Public Health. 2006;20(2-3):125–33. Feig SA. Screening mammography: a successful public health initiative. Revista Panamericana de Salud Publica-Pan Am J Public Health. 2006;20(2-3):125–33.
18.
go back to reference Harris R. Screening for breast cancer: what to do with the evidence. Am Fam Physician. 2007;75(11):1623–4, 1626.PubMed Harris R. Screening for breast cancer: what to do with the evidence. Am Fam Physician. 2007;75(11):1623–4, 1626.PubMed
20.
go back to reference Kopans DB. Beyond randomized controlled trials—organized mammographic screening substantially reduces breast carcinoma mortality. Cancer. 2002;94(2):580–1.CrossRefPubMed Kopans DB. Beyond randomized controlled trials—organized mammographic screening substantially reduces breast carcinoma mortality. Cancer. 2002;94(2):580–1.CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Linton OW, Schauer DA. Mammography: better, safer, and more effective? Radiology. 2006;240(1):3–5.CrossRefPubMed Linton OW, Schauer DA. Mammography: better, safer, and more effective? Radiology. 2006;240(1):3–5.CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Smith RA, Duffy SW, Gabe R, Tabar L, Yen AMF, Chen THH. The randomized trials of breast cancer screening: what have we learned? Radiol Clin N Am. 2004;42(5):793-+.CrossRefPubMed Smith RA, Duffy SW, Gabe R, Tabar L, Yen AMF, Chen THH. The randomized trials of breast cancer screening: what have we learned? Radiol Clin N Am. 2004;42(5):793-+.CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Tabar L, Dean PB. Mammography and breast cancer: the new era. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2003;82(3):319–26.CrossRef Tabar L, Dean PB. Mammography and breast cancer: the new era. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2003;82(3):319–26.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Tabar L, Yen MF, Vitak B, Chen HHT, Smith RA, Duffy SW. Mammography service screening and mortality in breast cancer patients: 20-year follow-up before and after introduction of screening. Lancet. 2003;361(9367):1405–10.CrossRefPubMed Tabar L, Yen MF, Vitak B, Chen HHT, Smith RA, Duffy SW. Mammography service screening and mortality in breast cancer patients: 20-year follow-up before and after introduction of screening. Lancet. 2003;361(9367):1405–10.CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Rosenberg RD, Yankaskas BC, Abraham LA, Sickles EA, Lehman CD, Geller BM, et al. Performance benchmarks for screening mammography. Radiology. 2006;241(1):55–66.CrossRefPubMed Rosenberg RD, Yankaskas BC, Abraham LA, Sickles EA, Lehman CD, Geller BM, et al. Performance benchmarks for screening mammography. Radiology. 2006;241(1):55–66.CrossRefPubMed
27.
go back to reference American College of Radiology. ACR breast imaging reporting and data system. 4th ed. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2003. American College of Radiology. ACR breast imaging reporting and data system. 4th ed. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2003.
28.
go back to reference Miles A, Cockburn J, Smith RA, Wardle J. A perspective from countries using organized screening programs. Cancer. 2004;101(5 Suppl):1201–13.CrossRefPubMed Miles A, Cockburn J, Smith RA, Wardle J. A perspective from countries using organized screening programs. Cancer. 2004;101(5 Suppl):1201–13.CrossRefPubMed
29.
go back to reference Banks E, Reeves G, Beral V, Bull D, Crossley B, Simmonds M, et al. Influence of personal characteristics of individual women on sensitivity and specificity of mammography in the Million Women Study: cohort study. BMJ. 2004;329(7464):477.CrossRefPubMed Banks E, Reeves G, Beral V, Bull D, Crossley B, Simmonds M, et al. Influence of personal characteristics of individual women on sensitivity and specificity of mammography in the Million Women Study: cohort study. BMJ. 2004;329(7464):477.CrossRefPubMed
30.
go back to reference Crouchley K, Wylie E, Khong E. Hormone replacement therapy and mammographic screening outcomes in Western Australia. J Med Screen. 2006;13(2):93–7.CrossRefPubMed Crouchley K, Wylie E, Khong E. Hormone replacement therapy and mammographic screening outcomes in Western Australia. J Med Screen. 2006;13(2):93–7.CrossRefPubMed
31.
go back to reference Ncayiyana D. Racial profiling in medical research: what are we measuring? S Afr Med J. 2010;97(12):1225–6. Ncayiyana D. Racial profiling in medical research: what are we measuring? S Afr Med J. 2010;97(12):1225–6.
32.
go back to reference Monsees BS. The mammography quality standards act: an overview of the regulations and guidance. Radiol Clin N Am. 2000;38:759–72.CrossRefPubMed Monsees BS. The mammography quality standards act: an overview of the regulations and guidance. Radiol Clin N Am. 2000;38:759–72.CrossRefPubMed
33.
go back to reference Osuch JR, Camburn JF, Sienko DG, Potchen EJ. The history and the effect of the mammography quality assurance legislation in Michigan. Cancer. 1994; 74(1 Suppl):263–70. Osuch JR, Camburn JF, Sienko DG, Potchen EJ. The history and the effect of the mammography quality assurance legislation in Michigan. Cancer. 1994; 74(1 Suppl):263–70.
34.
go back to reference Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C, Törnberg S, Holland R, von Karsa R, et al. European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis, 4th ed. European Communities; 2006. Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C, Törnberg S, Holland R, von Karsa R, et al. European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis, 4th ed. European Communities; 2006.
35.
go back to reference Giles GG, Amos A. Evaluation of the organised mammographic screening programme in Australia. Ann Oncol. 2003;14(8):1209–11.CrossRefPubMed Giles GG, Amos A. Evaluation of the organised mammographic screening programme in Australia. Ann Oncol. 2003;14(8):1209–11.CrossRefPubMed
36.
go back to reference The Information Centre. 2006–2007 Breast screening tables. Government Statistical Service, editor. NHS, UK, 28 February 2008. The Information Centre. 2006–2007 Breast screening tables. Government Statistical Service, editor. NHS, UK, 28 February 2008.
37.
go back to reference NHS Breast Screening Programme and Associations of Breast Surgeons at BASO. An audit of screen detected breast cancers for the year of screening April 2006 to March 2007. West Midlands Cancer Intelligence Unit; 2008. NHS Breast Screening Programme and Associations of Breast Surgeons at BASO. An audit of screen detected breast cancers for the year of screening April 2006 to March 2007. West Midlands Cancer Intelligence Unit; 2008.
38.
go back to reference BreastScreen Australia Monitoring Report 2004–2005. 2008 ed. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare; 2008. BreastScreen Australia Monitoring Report 2004–2005. 2008 ed. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare; 2008.
39.
go back to reference Ciatto S, Ambrogetti D, Morrone D, Del Turco MR. Analysis of the results of a proficiency test in screening mammography at the CSPO of Florence: review of 705 tests. Radiol Med (Torino). 2006;111(6):797–803.CrossRef Ciatto S, Ambrogetti D, Morrone D, Del Turco MR. Analysis of the results of a proficiency test in screening mammography at the CSPO of Florence: review of 705 tests. Radiol Med (Torino). 2006;111(6):797–803.CrossRef
40.
go back to reference Coldman AJ, Major D, Doyle GP, D’yachkova Y, Phillips N, Onysko J, et al. Organized breast screening programs in Canada: effect of radiologist reading volumes on outcomes. Radiology. 2006;238(3):809–15.CrossRefPubMed Coldman AJ, Major D, Doyle GP, D’yachkova Y, Phillips N, Onysko J, et al. Organized breast screening programs in Canada: effect of radiologist reading volumes on outcomes. Radiology. 2006;238(3):809–15.CrossRefPubMed
41.
go back to reference Molins E, Macia F, Ferrer F, Maristany MT, Castells X. Association between radiologists’ experience and accuracy in interpreting screening mammograms. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008;8:91.CrossRefPubMed Molins E, Macia F, Ferrer F, Maristany MT, Castells X. Association between radiologists’ experience and accuracy in interpreting screening mammograms. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008;8:91.CrossRefPubMed
42.
go back to reference Taplin S, Abraham L, Barlow WE, Fenton JJ, Berns EA, Carney PA, et al. Mammography facility characteristics associated with interpretive accuracy of screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100(12):876–87.CrossRefPubMed Taplin S, Abraham L, Barlow WE, Fenton JJ, Berns EA, Carney PA, et al. Mammography facility characteristics associated with interpretive accuracy of screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100(12):876–87.CrossRefPubMed
43.
go back to reference Theberge I, Hebert-Croteau N, Langlois A, Major D, Brisson J. Volume of screening mammography and performance in the Quebec population-based Breast Cancer Screening Program. CMAJ. 2005;172(2):195–9.PubMed Theberge I, Hebert-Croteau N, Langlois A, Major D, Brisson J. Volume of screening mammography and performance in the Quebec population-based Breast Cancer Screening Program. CMAJ. 2005;172(2):195–9.PubMed
44.
go back to reference Smith-Bindman R, Chu P, Miglioretti DL, Quale C, Rosenberg RD, Cutter G, et al. Physician predictors of mammographic accuracy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97(5):358–67.CrossRefPubMed Smith-Bindman R, Chu P, Miglioretti DL, Quale C, Rosenberg RD, Cutter G, et al. Physician predictors of mammographic accuracy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97(5):358–67.CrossRefPubMed
45.
go back to reference Melton AR. Are current mammography quality standards act (MQSA) physician guidelines truly adequate? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;191(2):W79.CrossRefPubMed Melton AR. Are current mammography quality standards act (MQSA) physician guidelines truly adequate? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;191(2):W79.CrossRefPubMed
46.
go back to reference Mouton JP, Apffelstaedt J, Baatjes K. Surgical mammography reporting in a limited resource environment. World J Surg. 2010. [Epub ahead of print]. Mouton JP, Apffelstaedt J, Baatjes K. Surgical mammography reporting in a limited resource environment. World J Surg. 2010. [Epub ahead of print].
47.
go back to reference Staren ED. Ultrasound-guided biopsy of nonpalpable breast masses by surgeons. Ann Surg Oncol. 1996 3(5):476–82.CrossRefPubMed Staren ED. Ultrasound-guided biopsy of nonpalpable breast masses by surgeons. Ann Surg Oncol. 1996 3(5):476–82.CrossRefPubMed
48.
go back to reference Roe SM, Mathews JA, Burns RP, Sumida MP, Craft P, Jr, Greer MS. Stereotactic and ultrasound core needle breast biopsy performed by surgeons. Am J Surg. 1997;174(6):699–703.CrossRefPubMed Roe SM, Mathews JA, Burns RP, Sumida MP, Craft P, Jr, Greer MS. Stereotactic and ultrasound core needle breast biopsy performed by surgeons. Am J Surg. 1997;174(6):699–703.CrossRefPubMed
49.
go back to reference Dowlatshahi K, Snider H, Lerner AG. Who should perform image-guided breast biopsy and treatment? Am J Surg. 2007;194(3):275–7.CrossRefPubMed Dowlatshahi K, Snider H, Lerner AG. Who should perform image-guided breast biopsy and treatment? Am J Surg. 2007;194(3):275–7.CrossRefPubMed
50.
go back to reference Elmore JG, Nakano CY, Koepsell TD, Desnick LM, D’Orsi CJ, Ransohoff DF. International variation in screening mammography interpretations in community-based programs. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003;95(18):1384–93.PubMed Elmore JG, Nakano CY, Koepsell TD, Desnick LM, D’Orsi CJ, Ransohoff DF. International variation in screening mammography interpretations in community-based programs. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003;95(18):1384–93.PubMed
Metadata
Title
Surgeon-Read Screening Mammography: An Analysis of 11,948 Examinations
Authors
Justus P. Apffelstaedt, FCS (SA)
Veronica Steenkamp, MBChB
Karin J. Baatjes, FCS (SA)
Publication date
01-10-2010
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Annals of Surgical Oncology / Issue Special Issue 3/2010
Print ISSN: 1068-9265
Electronic ISSN: 1534-4681
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-010-1241-7

Other articles of this Special Issue 3/2010

Annals of Surgical Oncology 3/2010 Go to the issue

American Society of Breast Surgeons

How I Do It: Oncoplastic Breast-Conservation Surgery