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

Radiology

Volumn 253, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 641-651

  Elmore, Joann G ^a   Jackson, Sara L ^a   Abraham, Linn ^c   Miglioretti, Diana L ^b,c   Carney, Patricia A ^d   Geller, Berta M ^e   Yankaskas, Bonnie C ^f   Kerlikowske, Karla ^g   Onega, Tracy ⁱ   Rosenberg, Robert D ^j   Sickles, Edward A ^h   Buist, Diana S M ^c  

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

^b UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^c GROUP HEALTH RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^d OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^g UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^h UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

ⁱ DARTMOUTH MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

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

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER SCREENING; CLINICAL PRACTICE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEMOGRAPHY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HIGH RISK PATIENT; HUMAN; INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW; LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MAMMOGRAPHY; PREDICTIVE VALIDITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIOLOGIST; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TRAINING; UNITED STATES; BREAST TUMOR; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; EDUCATION; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; MEDICAL EDUCATION; OBSERVER VARIATION; PREDICTION AND FORECASTING; QUESTIONNAIRE; RADIOGRAPHY; RADIOLOGY; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICS;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; EDUCATION, MEDICAL, GRADUATE; FALSE POSITIVE REACTIONS; FELLOWSHIPS AND SCHOLARSHIPS; FEMALE; HUMANS; LOGISTIC MODELS; MAMMOGRAPHY; OBSERVER VARIATION; PHYSICIAN'S PRACTICE PATTERNS; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; QUESTIONNAIRES; RADIOLOGY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UNITED STATES;

EID: 73949127167     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2533082308     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for breast cancer: recommendations and rationale. Ann Intern Med 2002;137(5 pt 1):344-346.
2. Humphrey LL, Helfand M, Chan BK, Woolf SH. Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2002;137(5 pt 1):347-360.
3. Elmore JG, Wells CK, Lee CH, Howard DH, Feinstein AR. Variability in radiologists' interpretations of mammograms. N Engl J Med 1994;331(22):1493- 1499.
4. 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(2):209-213.
5. Smith-Bindman R, Chu P, Miglioretti DL, et al. Physician predictors of mammographic accuracy. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005;97(5):358-367.
6. 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.
7. Sickles EA, Wolverton DE, Dee KE. Performance parameters for screening and diagnostic mammography: specialist and general radiologists. Radiology 2002;224(3):861-869.
8. Elmore JG, Miglioretti DL, Reisch LM, et al. Screening mammograms by community radiologists: variability in false-positive rates. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94(18):1373-1380.
9. Christiansen CL, Wang F, Barton MB, et al. Predicting the cumulative risk of false-positive mammograms. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92(20):1657-1666.
10. Smoothed plots of frequency distributions of recall rates for 3,294,680 screening mammography examinations (among radiologists with 1000 or more examinations), 1996-2005 [figure 1]. Performance benchmarks for screening mammography. Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium Web site. http://breastscreening.cancer.gov/data/benchmarks/screening/figure1.html. Updated November 29, 2007. Accessed December 26, 2008.
11. Smoothed plots of sensitivity for 16,324 cancers that were identified at screening mammography (among radiologists finding 30 or more cancers), 1996-2005 [figure 10]. Performance benchmarks for screening mammography. Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium Web site. http://breastscreening.cancer.gov/data/ benchmarks/screening/figure10.html. Updated November 29, 2007. Accessed December 26, 2008.
12. American College of Radiology. Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS). Reston, Va: American College of Radiology, 2003.
13. Bassett LW, Hendrick RE, Bassford TL, et al. Quality determinants of mammography. Clinical practice guideline no. 13. AHCPR publication no. 95-0632. Rockville, Md: Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, October 1994.
14. 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.
15. Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Breastscreening.cancer.gov Web site. http://breastscreening.cancer.gov/. Accessed May 29, 2008.
16. 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.
17. Elmore JG, Taplin SH, Barlow WE, et al. Does litigation influence medical practice? the influence of community radiologists' medical malpractice perceptions and experience on screening mammography. Radiology 2005;236(1):37-46.
18. Carney PA, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC, et al. Individual and combined effects of breast density, age, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med 2003;138(3):168-175.
19. 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.
20. Kerlikowske K, Carney PA, Geller B, et al. Performance of screening mammography among women with and without a first-degree relative with breast cancer. Ann Intern Med 2000;133(11):855-863.
21. Kerlikowske K, Miglioretti DL, Ballard-Barbash R, et al. Prognostic characteristics of breast cancer among postmenopausal hormone users in a screened population. J Clin Oncol 2003;21(23):4314-4321.
22. Miglioretti DL, Rutter CM, Geller BM, et al. Effect of breast augmentation on the accuracy of mammography and cancer characteristics. JAMA 2004;291(4):442-450.
23. Ongoing collaborations: FAVOR study (factors affecting variability of radiologists). National survey of mammography practices. FAVOR II mammography practice survey. Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium Web site. http://breastscreening.cancer.gov/collaborations/favor-ii-mammography-practice- survey.pdf. Accessed June 27, 2008.
24. Yankaskas BC, Taplin SH, Ichikawa L, et al. Association between mammography timing and measures of screening performance in the United States. Radiology 2005;234(2):363-373.
25. BCSC Glossary of Terms. Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium Web site. http://breastscreening.cancer.gov/data/bcsc-data-definitions.pdf. Last updated May 28, 2008. Accessed December 17, 2008.
26. Rosenberg RD, Yankaskas BC, Abraham LA, et al. Performance benchmarks for screening mammography. Radiology 2006;241(1):55-66.
27. American College of Radiology. Illustrated Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS). 3rd ed. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology, 1998.
28. Taplin SH, Ichikawa LE, Kerlikowske K, et al. Concordance of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System assessments and management recommendations in screening mammography. Radiology 2002;222(2):529-535.
29. 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.
30. Rutter CM, Gatsonis CA. A hierarchical regression approach to meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy evaluations. Stat Med 2001;20(19):2865-2884.
31. Leung JW, Margolin FR, Dee KE, Jacobs RP, Denny SR, Schrumpf JD. Performance parameters for screening and diagnostic mammography in a community practice: are there differences between specialists and general radiologists? AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;188(1):236-241.
32. Meyer J. Census 2000 brief. http: //www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01- 12.pdf. Accessed September 1, 2008.
33. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Use of mammograms among women aged > or = 40 years: United States, 2000-2005. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2007;56(3):49-51.
34. Bassett LW, Monsees BS, Smith RA, et al. Survey of radiology residents: breast imaging training and attitudes. Radiology 2003;227(3):862-869.
35. Mammography Quality Standards Act and program. U.S. Food and Drug Administration Web site. http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/ MammographyQualityStandardsActandProgram/Regulations/ucm110906.htm#s90011. Accessed July 8, 2008.
36. Bassett LW, Cassady CI, Gold RH. Present status of residency training in mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1991;156(1):59-62.
37. Bassett LW, Lubisich JP, Bresch JP, Jessop NW, Hendrick RE. Quality assurance in mammography: status of residency education. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1993;160(2):271-274.
38. Homer MJ. Mammography training in diagnostic radiology residency programs. Radiology 1980;135(2):529-531.
39. Jackson VP, Bresch JA, Bassett LW, Dershaw DD, Jessop NW. Status of mammography education and knowledge of radiology residents. Radiology 1996;201(3):773-776.
40. Lubisich JP, Bassett LW, Bresch JA, Jessop NW. Status of residency training in mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996;166(5):1189-1191.
41. Guenin MA. Generalists versus specialists in mammography [letter]. Radiology 2003;227(2):609.
42. Sickles EA, Wolverton DE, Dee KE. Reply. Radiology 2003;227(2):609-611.
43. Asch DA, Jedrziewski MK, Christakis NA. Response rates to mail surveys published in medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol 1997;50(10):1129-1136.
44. Continuing education in the health professions: improving healthcare through lifelong learning. New York, NY: Josiah Macy Jr Foundation, 2008.
45. 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. Radiology 1992;184(1):39-43.