|Grant Number:||3U01CA070040-15S2 Interpret this number|
|Primary Investigator:||Yankaskas, Bonnie|
|Organization:||Univ Of North Carolina Chapel Hill|
|Project Title:||Carolina Mammography Registry|
DESCRIPTION (provided by applicant): This proposal is in response to RFA CA-05-502 from the National cancer Institute, to support continued building and maintenance of the infrastructure that has become the Carolina Mammography Registry (CMR), as part of the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC). The BCSC is a collaborative network of seven mammography registries with linkages to pathology and tumor registries. We propose to continue the work of CMR for a region of North Carolina. Prospective practice-based data will be collected directly from women and professionals in mammography facilities including: demographic data, breast history data, family history, hormone use, reason for and findings on the screening mammogram, data on other imaging studies necessary to resolve the screening assessment, and recommendations for follow-up. The pathology data will be collected prospectively from several sources including directly from mammography facilities, from a rapid case reporting system and annual complete electronic download of all breast cancer records from the NC Central Cancer Registry. With the addition of informed consent, and the ability to do special surveys, CMR will be able to contribute data to enhance the ability to study screening, diagnosis, treatment and survival for breast cancer. The data in CMR represents the diversity of the population of North Carolina and the diversity of the mammography facilities. All data will be shared with the Statistical Coordinating Center of the (BCSC) for pooled analyses by the investigators of the Registries comprising BCSC and outside investigators. Efforts will be made to increase the visibility of both CMR and the BCSC in North Carolina, to enhance use of the data for research, planning and education.
Positive predictive value of mammography: comparison of interpretations of screening and diagnostic images by the same radiologist and by different radiologists.
Authors: Halladay JR, Yankaskas BC, Bowling JM, Alexander C
Source: AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2010 Sep;195(3), p. 782-5.
Comparing interval breast cancer rates in Norway and North Carolina: results and challenges.
Authors: Hofvind S, Yankaskas BC, Bulliard JL, Klabunde CN, Fracheboud J
Source: J Med Screen, 2009;16(3), p. 131-9.
When radiologists perform best: the learning curve in screening mammogram interpretation.
Authors: Miglioretti DL, Gard CC, Carney PA, Onega TL, Buist DS, Sickles EA, Kerlikowske K, Rosenberg RD, Yankaskas BC, Geller BM, Elmore JG
Source: Radiology, 2009 Dec;253(3), p. 632-40.
EPub date: 2009 Sep 29.
Obesity, mammography use and accuracy, and advanced breast cancer risk.
Authors: Kerlikowske K, Walker R, Miglioretti DL, Desai A, Ballard-Barbash R, Buist DS
Source: J Natl Cancer Inst, 2008 Dec 3;100(23), p. 1724-33.
EPub date: 2008 Nov 25.
Accuracy of short-interval follow-up mammograms by patient and radiologist characteristics.
Authors: Aiello Bowles EJ, Miglioretti DL, Sickles EA, Abraham L, Carney PA, Yankaskas BC, Elmore JG
Source: AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2008 May;190(5), p. 1200-8.