Performance of diagnostic mammography differs in the United States and Denmark
- PMID: 20104518
- PMCID: PMC3755747
- DOI: 10.1002/ijc.25198
Performance of diagnostic mammography differs in the United States and Denmark
Abstract
Diagnostic mammography is the primary imaging modality to diagnose breast cancer. However, few studies have evaluated variability in diagnostic mammography performance in communities, and none has done so between countries. We compared diagnostic mammography performance in community-based settings in the United States and Denmark. The performance of 93,585 diagnostic mammograms from 180 facilities contributing data to the US Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) from 1999 to 2001 was compared to that of all 51,313 diagnostic mammograms performed at Danish clinics in 2000. We used the imaging workup's final assessment to determine sensitivity, specificity and an estimate of accuracy: area under the receiver-operating characteristics (ROCs) curve (AUC). Diagnostic mammography had slightly higher sensitivity in the United States (85%) than in Denmark (82%). In contrast, it had higher specificity in Denmark (99%) than in the United States (93%). The AUC was high in both countries: 0.91 in United States and 0.95 in Denmark. Denmark's higher accuracy may result from supplementary ultrasound examinations, which are provided to 74% of Danish women but only 37% to 52% of US women. In addition, Danish mammography facilities specialize in either diagnosis or screening, possibly leading to greater diagnostic mammography expertise in facilities dedicated to symptomatic patients. Performance of community-based diagnostic mammography settings varied markedly between the 2 countries, indicating that it can be further optimized.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors state no conflict of interest.
Figures

References
-
- Perry NM. Quality assurance in the diagnosis of breast disease. EUSOMA Working Party. Eur J Cancer. 2001 Jan;37:159–72. - PubMed
-
- Sickles EA, Miglioretti DL, Ballard-Barbash R, Geller BM, Leung JW, Rosenberg RD, Smith-Bindman R, Yankaskas BC. Performance benchmarks for diagnostic mammography. Radiology. 2005;235:775–90. - PubMed
-
- Flobbe K, van der Linden ES, Kessels AG, van Engelshoven JM. Diagnostic value of radiological breast imaging in a non-screening population. Int J Cancer. 2001;92:616–8. - PubMed
-
- Eltahir A, Jibril JA, Squair J, Heys SD, Ah-See AK, Needham G, Gilbert FJ, Deans HE, McKean ME, Smart LM, Eremin O. The accuracy of “one-stop” diagnosis for 1,110 patients presenting to a symptomatic breast clinic. J R Coll Surg Edinb. 1999;44:226–30. - PubMed
-
- Zonderland HM, Pope TL, Jr, Nieborg AJ. The positive predictive value of the breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) as a method of quality assessment in breast imaging in a hospital population. Eur Radiol. 2004;14:1743–50. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
- U01 CA063740/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- U01CA69976/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- U01 CA070040/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- U01CA70013/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- U01 CA086082/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- U01CA63736/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- U01CA86082/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- U01CA70040/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- U01CA63740/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- U01 CA063731/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- U01 CA086076/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- U01 CA069976/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- U01CA86076/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- U01 CA063736/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- U01 CA070013/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- U01CA63731/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical