Audit of diagnostic mammography examinations at the Centro de Diagnóstico Mamario de la Asociación Española (Center for Breast Diagnosis of the Asociación Española)
Abstract
Objective: to evaluate the performance of diagnostic mammography at the "Centro de Diagnóstico Mamario (CENDIMA) of the Asociación Española".
Method: we calculated the positive predictive value, cancer detection rate, cancer minimum percentage, average size of the invading cancer, negative axilla percentage and percentages for stages 0 and I.
Results were compared to reference parameters provided by the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC).
Results: positive predictive value of all positive mammographies BI-RADS 4 and 5 was 62% (over P90 according to the BCSC database).
Positive predictive value of all biopsies actually performed was 55% (P75 to P90). Cancer detection rate was 9 /1,000 (< P10).
Minimum percentage was 36% (P25 to P50).
130 invasive cancer cases were diagnosed, average size was 10 mm (P25 a P50).
Negative axilla percentage was 72% (P50 to P75).
Stage 0 and stage I cancer percentage was 61% (P50).
Conclusions: parameters found indicate CENDIMA’s performance, in terms of breast cancer, agrees with most centers for breast diagnosis in the United States.
Cancer detection rate is low for a diagnosis center, due to the fact that the population studied is mainly comprised of asymptomatic women.
References
(2) Sickles E. Quality assurance: how to audit your own mammography practice. Radiol Clin North Am 1992; 30:265-75.
(3) Feig S. Auditing and benchmarks in screening and diagnostic mammography. Radiol Clin North Am 2007; 45(5):791-800.
(4) National Cancer Institute. Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC). Disponible en: http://breastscreening. cancer.gov/benchmarks/diagnostic. [Consulta: 18 marzo 2008].
(5) Sickles E, Miglioretti D, Ballard-Barbash R, Geller B, Leung J, Rosenberg R, et al. Performance benchmarks for diagnostic mammography. Radiology 2005; 235:775-90.
(6) Sohlich R, Sickles E, Burnside E, Dee K. Interpreting data from audits when screening and diagnostic mammography outcomes are combined. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002; 178(3):681-6.
(7) Dee K, Sickles E. Medical audit of diagnostic mammography examinations: comparison with screening outcomes obtained concurrently. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002; 176(3):729-33.
(8) D’Orsi CJ, Bassett LW, Berg WA. Breast imaging reporting and data system: ACR BI-RADS. 4 ed. Reston: American College of Radiology, 2003: 229-51.
(9) Horvath J, Milans S, Méndez G. 10 años del servicio de imagenología mamaria del Hospital Universitario: resultados auditados. Rev Imagenología 2006; 9(2):36-40.
(10) Horvath J, Krivianski N, Bianco C. Resultados auditados. Servicio de Imagenología Mamaria CASMU. Rev Imagenología 2006; 10(1):41-5.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
