Variability of interpretive accuracy among diagnostic mammography facilities

Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Volumn 101, Issue 11, 2009, Pages 814-827

  Jackson, Sara L ^a   Taplin, Stephen H ^b   Sickles, Edward A ^c   Abraham, Linn ^d   Barlow, William E ^e   Carney, Patricia A ^f   Geller, Berta ^g   Berns, Eric A ^h   Cutter, Gary R ⁱ   Elmore, Joann G ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^d CENTER FOR HEALTH STUDIES   (United States)

^e Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center   (United States)

^f OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^g UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT   (United States)

^h UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO HOSPITAL   (United States)

ⁱ UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST BIOPSY; BREAST CANCER; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER REGISTRY; CANCER SCREENING; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE FACILITY; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; BIOPSY; BREAST TUMOR; CANCER CENTER; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS; EPIDEMIOLOGY; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; LEGAL LIABILITY; MALPRACTICE; MASS SCREENING; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; OBSERVER VARIATION; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PATHOLOGY; PREDICTION AND FORECASTING; RADIOGRAPHY; RISK; ROC CURVE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STANDARD; STATISTICS; UNITED STATES;

ADULT; AGED; AREA UNDER CURVE; BIOPSY; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CANCER CARE FACILITIES; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; CONFOUNDING FACTORS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); DEFENSIVE MEDICINE; DIAGNOSIS, DIFFERENTIAL; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; FALSE POSITIVE REACTIONS; FEMALE; HUMANS; LIABILITY, LEGAL; MALPRACTICE; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; OBSERVER VARIATION; ODDS RATIO; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; ROC CURVE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UNITED STATES;

EID: 67449083871     PISSN: 00278874     EISSN: 14602105     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djp105     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Sickles EA, Miglioretti DL, Ballard-Barbash RD, et al. Performance benchmarks for diagnostic mammography. Radiology. 2005; 235 (3): 775-790.
2. Taplin S, Abraham L, Barlow WE, et al. Mammography facility characteristics associated with interpretive accuracy of screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008; 100 (12): 876-887.
3. Barlow WE, Lehman CD, Zheng Y, et al. Performance of diagnostic mammography in women with breast signs or symptoms. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002; 94 (15): 1151-1159.
4. Miglioretti DL, Smith-Bindman R, Abraham L, et al. Radiologist characteristics associated with interpretive performance of diagnostic mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007; 99 (24): 1854-1863.
5. Sickles EA, Wolverton DE, Dee KE. Performance parameters for screening and diagnostic mammography: specialist and general radiologists. Radiology. 2002; 224 (3): 861-869.
6. Jensen A, Vejborg I, Severinsen N, et al. Performance of clinical mammography: a nationwide study from Denmark. Int J Cancer. 2006; 119 (1): 183-191.
7. Houssami N, Irwig L, Simpson JM, McKessar M, Blome S, Noakes J. The influence of clinical information on the accuracy of diagnostic mammography. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2004; 85 (3): 223-228.
8. Houssami N, Irwig L, Simpson JM, McKessar M, Blome S, Noakes J. The contribution of work-up or additional views to the accuracy of diagnostic mammography. Breast. 2003; 12 (4): 270-275.
9. Burnside ES, Sickles EA, Sohlich RE, Dee KE. Differential value of comparison with previous examinations in diagnostic versus screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002; 179 (5): 1173-1177.
10. Ballard-Barbash R, Taplin SH, Yankaskas BC, et al. Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium: a national mammography screening and outcomes database. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1997; 169 (4): 1001-1008.
11. Fishbein M. Factors influencing health behaviors: an analysis based on a theory of reasoned action. In: Landry F, ed. Health Risk Estimation, Risk Reduction and Health Promotion. Ottawa, ON, Canada: Canadian Public Health Association; 1983: 203-214.
12. Green LW, Kreuter MW. Health promotion planning: an educational and environmental approach. In: Health Promotion Today and a Framework for Planning. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Co; 1991: 24.
13. Elmore JG, Carney PA, Taplin S, D'Orsi CJ, Cutter G, Hendrick E. Does litigation influence medical practice? The influence of community radiologists, medical malpractice perceptions and experience on screening mammography. Radiology. 2005; 236 (1): 37-46.
14. Taplin SH, Ichikawa L, Buist DS, Seger D, White E. Evaluating organized breast cancer screening implementation: the prevention of late-stage disease? Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2004; 13 (2): 225-234.
15. Poplack SP, Tosteson AN, Grove M, Wells WA, Carney PA. The practice of mammography in 53,803 women from the New Hampshire Mammography Network. Radiology. 2000; 217 (3): 832-840.
16. Ernster VL, Ballard-Barbash R, Barlow WE, et al. Detection of ductal carcinoma in situ in women undergoing screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002; 94 (20): 1546-1554.
17. Dee KE, Sickles EA. Medical audit of diagnostic mammography examinations: comparison with screening outcomes obtained concurrently. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001; 176 (3): 729-733.
18. Rosenberg RD, Yankaskas BC, Abraham LA, et al. Performance benchmarks for screening mammography. Radiology. 2006; 241 (1): 55-66.
19. Barlow WE, Chi C, Carney PA, et al. Accuracy of screening mammography interpretation by characteristics of radiologists. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004; 96 (24): 1840-1850.
20. D'Orsi C, Bassett L, Berg W, et al. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System - Mammography. 4th ed. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2003.
21. Green J, Wintfeld N. Report cards on cardiac surgeons. Assessing New York State's approach. N Engl J Med. 1995; 332 (18): 1229-1232.
22. Smith-Bindman R, Chu PW, Miglioretti DL, et al. Comparison of screening mammography in the United States and the United Kingdom. JAMA. 2003; 290 (16): 2129-2137.
23. Elmore JG, Nakano CY, Koepsell TD, Desnick LM, D'Orsi CJ, Ransohoff DF. International variation in screening mammography interpretations in community-based programs. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003; 95 (18): 1384-1393.
24. Deyo RA, Patrick DL. Hope or Hype: The Obsession With Medical Advances and the High Cost of False Promises. 1st ed. New York, NY: AMACOM; 2005.