Asia-Pacific Journal of Clinical Oncology

Original article

Mammography performance in Oman: Review of factors influencing cancer yield and positive predictive value

Corresponding Author

Sawsan Taif

Department of Radiology, Khoula Hospital, Muscat, Oman

Correspondence: Dr Sawsan Taif FRCR FICMS, Department of Radiology, Khoula Hospital, PO Box 90, Muscat 116, Oman. Email: [email protected]Search for more papers by this author

Fatma Tufail,

Fatma Tufail

Department of Radiology, Khoula Hospital, Muscat, Oman

Search for more papers by this author

Ahmed Sameer Alnuaimi,

Ahmed Sameer Alnuaimi

Department of Community Medicine, Baghdad College of Medicine, Baghdad, Iraq

Search for more papers by this author

Sawsan Taif,

Corresponding Author

Sawsan Taif

Department of Radiology, Khoula Hospital, Muscat, Oman

Correspondence: Dr Sawsan Taif FRCR FICMS, Department of Radiology, Khoula Hospital, PO Box 90, Muscat 116, Oman. Email: [email protected]Search for more papers by this author

Fatma Tufail,

Fatma Tufail

Department of Radiology, Khoula Hospital, Muscat, Oman

Search for more papers by this author

Ahmed Sameer Alnuaimi,

Ahmed Sameer Alnuaimi

Department of Community Medicine, Baghdad College of Medicine, Baghdad, Iraq

Search for more papers by this author

First published: 27 March 2014

https://doi.org/10.1111/ajco.12181

Citations: 2

Conflict of interest: none

Share a link

Email
Wechat
Bluesky

Abstract

Aim

The aim of this study is to assess mammography performance in Oman by estimating the breast cancer rate and the positive predictive value (PPV) with the influence of some variables.

Methods

This cross-sectional study was conducted on mammograms done in one of the three main breast imaging centers in Oman between January 2008 and July 2012. Diagnostic and screening groups were identified and assessed separately. Rate of abnormal mammograms, rate of breast cancer and the PPV were estimated according to Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BIRADS) score, presence of breast lump and patient's age.

Results

Total of 653 mammograms were included, 254 diagnostic and 399 screening. Abnormal mammograms (BIRADS 4 and 5) form 31.9% of the diagnostic examinations compared with 6.8% of screening examinations. Breast cancer was present in 17.9% of the diagnostic compared with 1.0% of the screening group. The PPV of BIRADS 5 was 94.1%, and for BIRADS 4 was 37.1 and 26.7% for diagnostic and screening studies. Overall PPV for abnormal mammograms was 65.2% in the diagnostic and 26.7% in the screening group. Mammography PPV shows positive association with age (P = 0.039) while presence of breast lump has no significant effect on the PPV (P = 0.38).

Conclusion

BIRADS 5 score was found to have a high cancer yield making it a strong predictor of cancer. Different results were obtained in the diagnostic compared with screening mammography with higher rates of abnormal mammograms and breast cancer. Mammography performance should be better in the older women.

References

1 Ministry of Health, Oman. Cancer Incidence in Oman Report of 2010. Directorate General of Health Affairs, Department of Non-Communicable Disease Surveillance and Control, 2010.
Google Scholar
2 Kumar S, Burney IA, Al-Ajmi A, Al-Moundhri MS. Changing trends of breast cancer survival in sultanate of Oman. J Oncol 2011; 2011: 316243.
10.1155/2011/316243
PubMed Google Scholar
3 Prasad SN, Houserkova D. The role of various modalities in breast imaging. Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub 2007; 151: 209–218.
10.5507/bp.2007.036
PubMed Google Scholar
4 Duffy SW, Tabar L, Chen HH et al. The impact of organized mammography service screening on breast carcinoma mortality in seven Swedish counties. Cancer 2002; 95: 458–469.
10.1002/cncr.10765
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
5 Tabar L, Vitak B, Chen HH, Yen MF, Duffy SW, Smith RA. Beyond randomized controlled trials: organized mammographic screening substantially reduces breast carcinoma mortality. Cancer 2001; 91: 1724–1731.
10.1002/1097-0142(20010501)91:9<1724::AID-CNCR1190>3.0.CO;2-V
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
6 Hellquist BN, Duffy SW, Abdsaleh S et al. Effectiveness of population-based service screening with mammography for women ages 40 to 49 years: evaluation of the Swedish Mammography Screening in Young Women (SCRY) cohort. Cancer 2011; 117: 714–722.
10.1002/cncr.25650
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
7 Tabar L, Vitak B, Chen TH et al. Swedish two-county trial: impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality during 3 decades. Radiology 2011; 260: 658–663.
10.1148/radiol.11110469
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
8 Nelson HD, Tyne K, Naik A, Bougatsos C, Chan BK, Humphrey L. Screening for breast cancer: an update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2009; 151: 727–737.
10.7326/0003-4819-151-10-200911170-00009
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
9 National Health Services. Public Health Functions to be Exercised by NHS England. Breast Screening Program. Department of Health, NHS, gov.uk, 2013.
Google Scholar
10 American College of Radiology. Practice Guidelines for the Performance of Screening and Diagnostic Mammography. [Revised 1 October 2013; cited 1 October 2008.] Available from URL: http://www.acr.org.
Google Scholar
11 American College of Radiology. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS), 4th edn. American College of Radiology, Reston, VA 2003.
Google Scholar
12 El Saghir NS. Responding to the challenges of breast cancer in Egypt and other Arab countries. J Egypt Natl Canc Inst 2008; 20: 309–312.
PubMed Google Scholar
13 Venkatesan A, Chu P, Kerlikowske K, Sickles E, Bindman R. Positive predictive value of specific mammographic findings according to reader and patient variables. Radiology 2009; 250: 648–657.
10.1148/radiol.2503080541
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
14 Aiello Bowles EJ, Geller BM. Best ways to provide feedback to radiologists on mammography performance. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009; 193: 157–164.
10.2214/AJR.08.2051
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
15 Dee KE, Sickles EA. Medical audit of diagnostic mammography examinations: comparison with screening outcomes obtained concurrently. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001; 176: 729–733.
10.2214/ajr.176.3.1760729
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
16 Barlow WE, Lehman CD, Zheng Y. Performance of diagnostic mammography for women with signs or symptoms of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002; 94: 1151–1159.
10.1093/jnci/94.15.1151
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
17 Carney PA, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC, Kerlikowske K, Rosenberg R, Rutter CM. Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med 2003; 138: 168–175.
10.7326/0003-4819-138-3-200302040-00008
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
18 Tuncbilek I, Ozdemir A, Gultekin S, Ogur T, Erman R, Yuce C. Clinical outcome assessment in mammography: an audit of 7,506 screening and diagnostic mammography examinations. Diagn Interv Radiol 2007; 13: 183–187.
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
19 Jiang Y, Miglioretti DL, Metz CE, Schmidt RA. Breast cancer detection rate: designing imaging trials to demonstrate improvements. Radiology 2007; 243: 360–367.
10.1148/radiol.2432060253
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
20 Raza S, Chikarmane SA, Neilsen SS, Zorn LM, Birdwell RL. BI-RADS 3, 4, and 5 lesions: value of US in management-follow-up and outcome. Radiology 2008; 248: 773–781.
10.1148/radiol.2483071786
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
21 Wiratkapun C, Lertsithichai P, Wibulpholprasert B. Positive predictive value of breast cancer in the lesions categorized as BI-RADS category 5. J Med Assoc Thai 2006; 89: 1253–1259.
PubMed Google Scholar
22 Wiratkapun C, Bunyapaiboonsri W, Wibulpholprasert B, Lertsithichai P. Biopsy rate and positive predictive value for breast cancer in BI-RADS category 4 breast lesions. J Med Assoc Thai 2010; 93: 830–837.
PubMed Google Scholar
23 Orel SG, Kay N, Reynolds C, Sullivan DC. BI-RADS categorization as a predictor of malignancy. Radiology 1999; 211 (3): 845–850.
10.1148/radiology.211.3.r99jn31845
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
24 Lazarus E, Mainiero MB, Schepps B, Koelliker SL, Livingston LS. BI-RADS lexicon for US and mammography: interobserver variability and positive predictive value. Radiology 2006; 239: 385–391.
10.1148/radiol.2392042127
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
25 Muttarak M, Srivichai K, Chaiwun B, Sukhamwang N. The breast imaging reporting and data system-BI-RADS: positive predictive value of category 4 and 5 lesions. Chiang Mai Med J 2010; 49: 111–116.
Google Scholar
26 Lacquement MA, Mitchell D, Hollingsworth AB. Positive predictive value of the breast imaging reporting and data system. J Am Coll Surg 1999; 189: 34–40.
10.1016/S1072-7515(99)00080-0
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
27 Tan YY, Wee SB, Tan MP, Chong BK. Positive predictive value of BI-RADS categorization in an Asian population. Asian J Surg 2004; 27: 186–191.
10.1016/S1015-9584(09)60030-0
PubMed Google Scholar
28 Tabanera MT, Rebollo JM, Castano PV et al. Analysis of the positive predictive value of the subcategories of BI-RADS 4 lesions: preliminary results in 880 lesions. Radiologia 2012; 54: 520–531.
10.1016/j.rx.2011.04.004
PubMed Google Scholar
29 Prado GL, Guerra MM. Positive predictive value of breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) categories 3, 4 and 5. Radiol Bras 2010; 43: 171–174.
10.1590/S0100-39842010000300008
Google Scholar
30 Liberman L, Abramson AF, Squires FB, Glassman JR, Morris EA, Dershaw DD. The breast imaging reporting and data system: positive predictive value of mammographic features and final assessment categories. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998; 171: 35–40.
10.2214/ajr.171.1.9648759
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
31 Feig SA. Age-related accuracy of screening mammography: how should it be measured? Radiology 2000; 214: 633–640.
10.1148/radiology.214.3.r00mr45633
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
32 Sinclair N, Littenberg B, Geller B, Muss H. Accuracy of screening mammography in older women. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011; 197: 1268–1273.
10.2214/AJR.10.5442
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
33 Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, Sickles EA, Eaton A, Ernster V. Positive predictive value of screening mammography by age and family history of breast cancer. JAMA 1993; 270: 2444–2450.
10.1001/jama.1993.03510200050031
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar

Citing Literature

Volume12, Issue2

June 2016

Pages e250-e258

Mammography performance in Oman: Review of factors influencing cancer yield and positive predictive value

Abstract

Aim

Methods

Results

Conclusion

References

Citing Literature

References

Information

About Wiley Online Library

Help & Support

Opportunities

Connect with Wiley

Mammography performance in Oman: Review of factors influencing cancer yield and positive predictive value

Abstract

Aim

Methods

Results

Conclusion

References

Citing Literature

References

Related

Information