Physician predictors of mammographic accuracy

Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Volumn 97, Issue 5, 2005, Pages 358-367

  Smith Bindman, Rebecca ^a   Chu, Philip ^a   Miglioretti, Diana L ^b   Quale, Chris ^a   Rosenberg, Robert D ^c   Cutter, Gary ^d   Geller, Berta ^e   Bacchetti, Peter ^a   Sickles, Edward A ^a   Kerlikowske, Karla ^a,f  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER SCREENING; CLINICAL PRACTICE; COMPETENCE; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; HUMAN; MAMMOGRAPHY; MULTIVARIATE LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UNITED STATES; ADULT; AGED; BREAST TUMOR; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; FEMALE; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTICENTER STUDY; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; PHYSICIAN; PREDICTION AND FORECASTING; RADIOGRAPHY; RISK; STANDARD; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICS;

ADULT; AGED; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; COLORADO; CONFIDENCE INTERVALS; FALSE NEGATIVE REACTIONS; FALSE POSITIVE REACTIONS; FEMALE; HUMANS; LOGISTIC MODELS; MALE; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; NEW MEXICO; ODDS RATIO; PHYSICIANS; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; SAN FRANCISCO; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; VERMONT;

EID: 20044384688     PISSN: 00278874     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jnci/dji060     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Carney P, Miglioretti D, Yankaskas B, Kerlikowske K, Rosenberg R, Rutter C, et al. Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the performance of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med 2003;138:168-73.
2. 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;270:2444-50.
3. May D, Lee N, Nadel M, Henson RM, Miller DS. The National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program: report on the first 4 years of mammography provided to medically underserved women. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998;170:97-104.
4. Sickles E, Ominsky S, Sollitto R, Galvin HB, Monticciolo DL. Medical audit of a rapid-throughput mammography screening practice: methodology and results of 27,114 examinations. Radiology 1990;175:323-7.
5. Smith-Bindman R, Chu PW, Miglioretti DL, Sickles EA, Blanks R, Ballard-Barbash R, et al. Comparison of screening mammography in the United States and the United Kingdom. JAMA 2003;290:2129-37.
6. Elmore JG, Wells CK, Howard DH, Feinstein AR. The impact of clinical history on mammographic interpretations. JAMA 1997;277:49-52.
7. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, Sickles ES, Ernster V. Likelihood ratios for modern screening mammography. Risk of breast cancer based on age and mammographic interpretation. JAMA 1996;276:39-43.
8. Hannan EL, Racz M, Ryan TJ, McCallister BD, Johnson LW, Arani DT, et al. Coronary angioplasty volume-outcome relationships for hospitals and cardiologists. JAMA 1997;277:892-8.
9. Halm EA, Lee C, Chassin MR. Is volume related to outcome in health care? A systematic review and methodologic critique of the literature. Ann Intern Med 2002;137:511-20.
10. Linver MN, Paster SB, Rosenberg RD, Key CR, Stidley CA, King WV. Improvement in mammography interpretation skills in a community radiology practice after dedicated teaching courses: 2-year medical audit of 38,633 cases [erratum ain Radiology 1992;184:878]. Radiology 1992;184:39-43.
11. Elmore JG, Miglioretti DL, Reisch LM, Barton MB, Kreuter W, Christiansen CL, et al. Screening mammograms by community radiologists: variability in false-positive rates. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94:1373-80.
12. Elmore JG, Wells CK, Howard DH. Does diagnostic accuracy in mammography depend on radiologists' experience? J Women's Health 1998;7: 443-9.
13. Esserman L, Cowley H, Eberle C, Kirkpartrick A, Change S, Berbaum K, et al. Improving the accuracy of mammography: volume and outcome relationships. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002; 94.
14. Beam CA, Layde PM, Sullivan DC. Variability in the interpretation of screening mammograms by US radiologists. Findings from a national sample. Arch Intern Med 1996;156:209-13.
15. Beam C, Conant E, Sickles E. Association of volume and volume-independent factors with accuracy in screening mammogram interpretation. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;95:282-90.
16. Egglin T, Feinstein A. Context bias. A problem in diagnostic radiology. JAMA 1996;276:1752-5.
17. Elmore JG, Miglioretti DL, Carney PA. Does practice make perfect when interpreting mammography? Part II. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;95:250-2.
18. Kan L, Olivotto I, Burhenne LW, Sickles E, Coldman A. Standardized abnormal interpretation and cancer detection ratios to assess reading volume and reader performance in a breast screening program. Radiology 2000;215:563-7.
19. Sickles E, Wolverton D, Dee K. Performance parameters for screening and diagnostic mammography: specialist and general radiologists. Radiology 2002;224:861-9.
20. The Mammography Quality Standards Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-539.
21. Department of Health, U.K., Statistical Bulletin, Breast Screening Programme, England: 1999-2000. National Statistics; March 2000.
22. National Mammography Quality Assurance Advisory Committee. Summary minutes, Washington, DC, January 23-25, 1995.
23. Ballard-Barbash R, Taplin SH, Yankaskas BC, Ernster VL, Rosenberg RD, Carney PA, et al. Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium: a national mammography screening and outcomes database. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997;169:1001-8.
24. Barlow W, Lehman C, Zheng Y, Ballard-Barbash R, Yankaskas BC, Cutter GR, et al. Performance of diagnostic mammography for women with signs or symptoms of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94:1151-9.
25. Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium Web Site. http://www.breastscreening.cancer.gov/elements.html#questionnaires. [Last accessed: February 2, 2005.]
26. Ernster VL, Ballard-Barbash R, Barlow WE, Zheng Y, Weaver DL, Cutter G, et al. Detection of ductal carcinoma in situ in women undergoing screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94:1546-54.
27. Kerlikowske K, Carney PA, Geller B, Mandelson MT, Taplin SH, Malvin K, et al. Performance of screening mammography among women with and without a first-degree relative with breast cancer. Ann Intern Med 2000;133:855-63.
28. Kerlikowske K, Miglioretti DL, Ballard-Barbash R, Weaver DL, Buist DS, Barlow WE, et al. Prognostic characteristics of breast cancer among postmenopausal hormone users in a screened population. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:4314-21.
29. Miglioretti DL, Rutter CM, Geller BM, Cutter G, Barlow WE, Rosenberg R, et al. Effect of breast augmentation on the accuracy of mammography and cancer characteristics. JAMA 2004;291:442-50.
30. National Cancer Institute Monograph: BCSC report: evaluating screening performance in practice. Available at: http://breastscreening.cancer.gov/espp.pdf. [Last accessed: February 2, 2005.]
31. American Medical Association CoSA. http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/12850.html. [Last accessed: February 2, 2005.]
32. American College of Radiology. Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS). 3rd ed. Reston (VA): The College; 1998.
33. Miglioretti DL, Heagerty PJ. Marginal modeling of multilevel binary data with time-varying covariates. Biostatistics 2004;5:381-98.
34. Liang KY, Zeger SL. Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika 1986;73:13-22.
35. Pepe MS, Urban N, Rutter C, Longton G. Design of a study to improve accuracy in reading mammograms. J Clin Epidemiol 1997;50:1327-38.
36. Théberge I, Hébert-Croteau N, Langlois A, Major D, Brisson J. Volume of screening mammography and performance in the Quebec population-based Breast Cancer Screening Program. CMAJ 2005;172:195-199.
37. Barlow WE, Chi C, Carney PA, Taplin SH, D'Orsi C, Cutter G, et al. Accuracy of screening mammography interpretation by characteristics of radiologists. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004:24;1840-50.
38. Elmore JG, Yakano CY, Koepsell TD, et al. International variation in screening mammography Interpretations in community-based programs. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;95:1384-93.