|Grant Number:||5P01CA154292-03 Interpret this number|
|Primary Investigator:||Miglioretti, Diana|
|Organization:||Group Health Cooperative|
|Project Title:||Risk-Based Breast Cancer Screening in Community Settings|
The program theme is to identify effective breast cancer screening strategies for women with diverse levels of breast cancer risk to maximize screening benefits while minimizing potential harms. Program aims follow the premise that breast cancer screening will be most effective when: guidelines are based on accurate risk estimates that are tied to the effectiveness and harms of screening tests; women and physicians are informed about screening test performance based on risk level; risk-based screening practices are equitable; and high-quality comparative effectiveness research results are disseminated into community practice. Program goals will be met through three complementary research projects and three shared resource cores. Project 1, Risk Assessment in Community Practice: Developing Better Models, will improve prediction of breast cancer and breast cancer subtypes among women of varying ages and race/ethnicity and evaluate whether predicted risk can be used to optimize screening outcomes. Project 2, Comparative Effectiveness of Imaging Strategies for Breast Cancer Screening in Community Practice, will characterize the performance of advanced imaging technologies and screening strategies according to age, race/ethnicity, breast density, and overall breast cancer risk. Project 3, Community-based Utilization of Breast Imaging Technologies, will assess risk-based screening in diverse populations and identify disparities in access and use of new technologies. The Administrative Core will support logistical requirements and facilitate communication and data sharing. The Biostatistics and Data Management Core will coordinate data collection, management, and analysis and will develop statistical methods. The Comparative Effectiveness Core will use simulation modeling to estimate long-term implications of different screening practices on population health. The program represents an integrated effort to improve screening with the overall aim of averting deaths from breast cancer while minimizing harms.
Performance of digital screening mammography in a population-based cohort of black and white women.
Authors: Henderson LM, Benefield T, Nyante SJ, Marsh MW, Greenwood-Hickman MA, Schroeder BF
Source: Cancer Causes Control, 2015 Jul 17;null, p. null.
EPub date: 2015 Jul 17.
Validation of natural language processing to extract breast cancer pathology procedures and results.
Authors: Wieneke AE, Bowles EJ, Cronkite D, Wernli KJ, Gao H, Carrell D, Buist DS
Source: J Pathol Inform, 2015;6, p. 38.
EPub date: 2015 Jun 23.
Misclassification of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) Mammographic Density and Implications for Breast Density Reporting Legislation.
Authors: Gard CC, Aiello Bowles EJ, Miglioretti DL, Taplin SH, Rutter CM
Source: Breast J, 2015 Jul 1;null, p. null.
EPub date: 2015 Jul 1.
Availability of Advanced Breast Imaging at Screening Facilities Serving Vulnerable Populations.
Authors: Lee CI, Bogart A, Germino JC, Goldman LE, Hubbard RA, Haas JS, Hill DA, Tosteson AN, Alford-Teaster JA, DeMartini WB, Lehman CD, Onega TL
Source: J Med Screen, 2015 Jun 15;null, p. null.
EPub date: 2015 Jun 15.
Identifying women with dense breasts at high risk for interval cancer: a cohort study.
Authors: Kerlikowske K, Zhu W, Tosteson AN, Sprague BL, Tice JA, Lehman CD, Miglioretti DL, Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium
Source: Ann Intern Med, 2015 May 19;162(10), p. 673-81.
Predictors of preoperative MRI for breast cancer: differences by data source.
Authors: Loggers ET, Gao H, Gold LS, Kessler L, Etzioni R, Buist DS, ADVICE Investigators
Source: J Comp Eff Res, 2015 May 11;null, p. 1-12.
EPub date: 2015 May 11.
Variation in Breast Cancer-Risk Factor Associations by Method of Detection: Results From a Series of Case-Control Studies.
Authors: Sprague BL, Gangnon RE, Hampton JM, Egan KM, Titus LJ, Kerlikowske K, Remington PL, Newcomb PA, Trentham-Dietz A
Source: Am J Epidemiol, 2015 Jun 15;181(12), p. 956-69.
EPub date: 2015 May 5.
Comparing sensitivity and specificity of screening mammography in the United States and Denmark.
Authors: Kemp Jacobsen K, O'Meara ES, Key D, S M Buist D, Kerlikowske K, Vejborg I, Sprague BL, Lynge E, von Euler-Chelpin M
Source: Int J Cancer, 2015 May 5;null, p. null.
EPub date: 2015 May 5.
Five-year risk of interval-invasive second breast cancer.
Authors: Lee JM, Buist DS, Houssami N, Dowling EC, Halpern EF, Gazelle GS, Lehman CD, Henderson LM, Hubbard RA
Source: J Natl Cancer Inst, 2015 Jul;107(7), p. null.
EPub date: 2015 Apr 22.
Advanced Breast Imaging Availability by Screening Facility Characteristics.
Authors: Lee CI, Bogart A, Hubbard RA, Obadina ET, Hill DA, Haas JS, Tosteson AN, Alford-Teaster JA, Sprague BL, DeMartini WB, Lehman CD, Onega TL
Source: Acad Radiol, 2015 Jul;22(7), p. 846-52.
EPub date: 2015 Apr 4.
One versus Two Breast Density Measures to Predict 5- and 10-Year Breast Cancer Risk.
Authors: Kerlikowske K, Gard CC, Sprague BL, Tice JA, Miglioretti DL, Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium
Source: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev, 2015 Jun;24(6), p. 889-97.
EPub date: 2015 Mar 30.
Criteria for identifying radiologists with acceptable screening mammography interpretive performance on basis of multiple performance measures.
Authors: Miglioretti DL, Ichikawa L, Smith RA, Bassett LW, Feig SA, Monsees B, Parikh JR, Rosenberg RD, Sickles EA, Carney PA
Source: AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2015 Apr;204(4), p. W486-91.
Do mammographic technologists affect radiologists' diagnostic mammography interpretative performance?
Authors: Henderson LM, Benefield T, Bowling JM, Durham DD, Marsh MW, Schroeder BF, Yankaskas BC
Source: AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2015 Apr;204(4), p. 903-8.
The contribution of mammography screening to breast cancer incidence trends in the United States: an updated age-period-cohort model.
Authors: Gangnon RE, Sprague BL, Stout NK, Alagoz O, Weedon-Fekjśr H, Holford TR, Trentham-Dietz A
Source: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev, 2015 Jun;24(6), p. 905-12.
EPub date: 2015 Mar 18.
The contributions of breast density and common genetic variation to breast cancer risk.
Authors: Vachon CM, Pankratz VS, Scott CG, Haeberle L, Ziv E, Jensen MR, Brandt KR, Whaley DH, Olson JE, Heusinger K, Hack CC, Jud SM, Beckmann MW, Schulz-Wendtland R, Tice JA, Norman AD, Cunningham JM, Purrington KS, Easton DF, Sellers TA, Kerlikowske K, Fasching PA, Couch FJ
Source: J Natl Cancer Inst, 2015 May;107(5), p. null.
EPub date: 2015 Mar 4.
Comparison of false positive rates for screening breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in high risk women performed on stacked versus alternating schedules.
Authors: Othman E, Wang J, Sprague BL, Rounds T, Ji Y, Herschorn SD, Wood ME
Source: Springerplus, 2015;4, p. 77.
EPub date: 2015 Feb 13.
Dense and nondense mammographic area and risk of breast cancer by age and tumor characteristics.
Authors: Bertrand KA, Scott CG, Tamimi RM, Jensen MR, Pankratz VS, Norman AD, Visscher DW, Couch FJ, Shepherd J, Chen YY, Fan B, Wu FF, Ma L, Beck AH, Cummings SR, Kerlikowske K, Vachon CM
Source: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev, 2015 May;24(5), p. 798-809.
EPub date: 2015 Feb 25.
Using natural language processing to extract mammographic findings.
Authors: Gao H, Aiello Bowles EJ, Carrell D, Buist DS
Source: J Biomed Inform, 2015 Apr;54, p. 77-84.
EPub date: 2015 Feb 3.
Performance of digital screening mammography among older women in the United States.
Authors: Henderson LM, O'Meara ES, Braithwaite D, Onega T, Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium
Source: Cancer, 2015 May 1;121(9), p. 1379-86.
EPub date: 2014 Dec 23.
Benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of supplemental ultrasonography screening for women with dense breasts.
Authors: Sprague BL, Stout NK, Schechter C, van Ravesteyn NT, Cevik M, Alagoz O, Lee CI, van den Broek JJ, Miglioretti DL, Mandelblatt JS, de Koning HJ, Kerlikowske K, Lehman CD, Tosteson AN
Source: Ann Intern Med, 2015 Feb 3;162(3), p. 157-66.
The influence of mammographic technologists on radiologists' ability to interpret screening mammograms in community practice.
Authors: Henderson LM, Benefield T, Marsh MW, Schroeder BF, Durham DD, Yankaskas BC, Bowling JM
Source: Acad Radiol, 2015 Mar;22(3), p. 278-89.
EPub date: 2014 Nov 27.
Breast cancer detection with short-interval follow-up compared with return to annual screening in patients with benign stereotactic or US-guided breast biopsy results.
Authors: Johnson JM, Johnson AK, O'Meara ES, Miglioretti DL, Geller BM, Hotaling EN, Herschorn SD
Source: Radiology, 2015 Apr;275(1), p. 54-60.
EPub date: 2014 Nov 25.
Comparative effectiveness of combined digital mammography and tomosynthesis screening for women with dense breasts.
Authors: Lee CI, Cevik M, Alagoz O, Sprague BL, Tosteson AN, Miglioretti DL, Kerlikowske K, Stout NK, Jarvik JG, Ramsey SD, Lehman CD
Source: Radiology, 2015 Mar;274(3), p. 772-80.
EPub date: 2014 Oct 28.
Prevalence of mammographically dense breasts in the United States.
Authors: Sprague BL, Gangnon RE, Burt V, Trentham-Dietz A, Hampton JM, Wellman RD, Kerlikowske K, Miglioretti DL
Source: J Natl Cancer Inst, 2014 Oct;106(10), p. null.
EPub date: 2014 Sep 12.