Variability in interpretive performance at screening mammography and radiologists' characteristics associated with accuracy

Joann G Elmore, Sara L Jackson, Linn Abraham, Diana L Miglioretti, Patricia A Carney, Berta M Geller, Bonnie C Yankaskas, Karla Kerlikowske, Tracy Onega, Robert D Rosenberg, Edward A Sickles, Diana S M Buist
Radiology 2009, 253 (3): 641-51

PURPOSE: To identify radiologists' characteristics associated with interpretive performance in screening mammography.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was approved by institutional review boards of University of Washington (Seattle, Wash) and institutions at seven Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium sites, informed consent was obtained, and procedures were HIPAA compliant. Radiologists who interpreted mammograms in seven U.S. regions completed a self-administered mailed survey; information on demographics, practice type, and experience in and perceptions of general radiology and breast imaging was collected. Survey data were linked to data on screening mammograms the radiologists interpreted between January 1, 1998, and December 31, 2005, and included patient risk factors, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System assessment, and follow-up breast cancer data. The survey was returned by 71% (257 of 364) of radiologists; in 56% (205 of 364) of the eligible radiologists, complete data on screening mammograms during the study period were provided; these data were used in the final analysis. An evaluation of whether the radiologists' characteristics were associated with recall rate, false-positive rate, sensitivity, or positive predictive value of recall (PPV(1)) of the screening examinations was performed with logistic regression models that were adjusted for patients' characteristics and radiologist-specific random effects.

RESULTS: Study radiologists interpreted 1 036 155 screening mammograms; 4961 breast cancers were detected. Median percentages and interquartile ranges, respectively, were as follows: recall rate, 9.3% and 6.3%-13.2%; false-positive rate, 8.9% and 5.9%-12.8%; sensitivity, 83.8% and 74.5%-92.3%; and PPV(1), 4.0% and 2.6%-5.9%. Wide variability in sensitivity was noted, even among radiologists with similar false-positive rates. In adjusted regression models, female radiologists or fellowship-trained radiologists had significantly higher recall and false-positive rates (P < .05, all). Fellowship training in breast imaging was the only characteristic significantly associated with improved sensitivity (odds ratio, 2.32; 95% confidence interval: 1.42, 3.80; P < .001) and the overall accuracy parameter (odds ratio, 1.61; 95% confidence interval: 1.05, 2.45; P = .028).

CONCLUSION: Fellowship training in breast imaging may lead to improved cancer detection, but it is associated with higher false-positive rates.

Full Text Links

Find Full Text Links for this Article


You are not logged in. Sign Up or Log In to join the discussion.

Related Papers

Remove bar
Read by QxMD icon Read

Save your favorite articles in one place with a free QxMD account.


Search Tips

Use Boolean operators: AND/OR

diabetic AND foot
diabetes OR diabetic

Exclude a word using the 'minus' sign

Virchow -triad

Use Parentheses

water AND (cup OR glass)

Add an asterisk (*) at end of a word to include word stems

Neuro* will search for Neurology, Neuroscientist, Neurological, and so on

Use quotes to search for an exact phrase

"primary prevention of cancer"
(heart or cardiac or cardio*) AND arrest -"American Heart Association"