Are Radiologists' Goals for Mammography Accuracy Consistent with Published Recommendations?

Academic Radiology

Volumn 19, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 289-295

  Jackson, Sara L ^a   Cook, Andrea J ^a,b   Miglioretti, Diana L ^a,b   Carney, Patricia A ^c   Geller, Berta M ^d   Onega, Tracy ^e   Rosenberg, Robert D ^f   Brenner, R James ^g   Elmore, Joann G ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^b GROUP HEALTH RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^c OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT   (United States)

^e DARTMOUTH MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

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

^g Bay Imaging Consultants Inc   (United States)

Author keywords

Accuracy; False positive rate; Goals; Screening mammography

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST BIOPSY; BREAST CANCER; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; DEMOGRAPHY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; HUMAN; MAMMOGRAPHY; MEDICAL AUDIT; MOTIVATION; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLISHING; RADIOLOGIST; SELF REPORT;

ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; BREAST NEOPLASMS; FALSE POSITIVE REACTIONS; FEMALE; GOALS; HUMANS; MALE; MAMMOGRAPHY; OBSERVER VARIATION; PHYSICIANS; PREVALENCE; PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE; REGISTRIES; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84856595124     PISSN: 10766332     EISSN: 18784046     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2011.10.013     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Feig S.A. Auditing and benchmarks in screening and diagnostic mammography. Radiol Clin North Am 2007, 45:791-800.
2. ACR BI-RADS - Mammography 2003, American College of Radiology, American College of Radiology, Reston, VA. 4th ed.
3. Perry N., Broeders M., de Wolf C., et al. European guidelines for qualityassurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth edition-summary document. Ann Oncol 2008, 19:614-622.
4. US Food and Drug Administration/Center for Devices and Radiological Health. US FDA/CDRH: Mammography Program. Available at: Accessed May 2, 2011. http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/mammography.
5. EUREF European Reference Organisation for Quality Assured Breast Screening and Diagnostic Services. Available at: Accessed May 2, 2011. http://www.euref.org/.
6. Speck M. Best practice in professional development for sustained educational change. ERS Spectrum 1996, 14:33-41.
7. Laidley T.L., Braddock I.C. Role of adult learning theory in evaluating and designing strategies for teaching residents in ambulatory settings. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2000, 5:43-54.
8. Carney P.A., Bowles E.J., Sickles E.A., et al. Using a tailored web-based intervention to set goals to reduce unnecessary recall. Acad Radiol 2011, 18:495-503.
9. Ballard-Barbash R., Taplin S.H., Yankaskas B.C., et al. Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium: a national mammography screening and outcomes database. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997, 169:1001-1008.
10. Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (NCI). BCSC Collaborations: FAVOR. Available at: Accessed May 2, 2011. http://www54.imsweb.com/collaborations/favor.html.
11. Elmore J.G., Aiello Bowles E.J., Geller B., et al. Radiologists' attitudes and use of mammography audit reports. Acad Radiol 2010, 17:752-760.
12. Elmore J.G., Jackson S.L., Abraham L., et al. Variability in interpretive performance at screening mammography and radiologists' characteristics associated with accuracy. Radiology 2009, 253:641-651.
13. Bassett L.W., Hendrick R.E., Bassford T.L., et al. Quality determinants of mammography. Clinical practice guideline No. 13 1994, Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, Rockville, MD.
14. Rosenberg R.D., Yankaskas B.C., Abraham L.A., et al. Performance benchmarks for screening mammography. Radiology 2006, 241:55-66.
15. Breast Cancer Screening Consortium. BCSC Screening Performance Benchmarks. 2009. Available at: Accessed May 2, 2011. http://breastscreening.cancer.gov/data/benchmarks/screening.
16. Improving Breast Imaging Quality Standards 2005, Institute of Medicine, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
17. Miglioretti D.L., Gard C.C., Carney P.A., et al. When radiologists perform best: the learning curve in screening mammogram interpretation. Radiology 2009, 253:632-640.
18. Perry N. Interpretive skills in the National Health Service Breast Screening Programme: performance indicators and remedial measures. Semin Breast Dis 2003, 6:108-113.
19. Buist D.S., Anderson M.L., Haneuse S.J., et al. Influence of annual interpretive volume on screening mammography performance in the United States. Radiology 2011, 259:72-84.
20. Hebert-Croteau N., Roberge D., Brisson J., et al. Provider's volume and quality of breast cancer detection and treatment. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2007, 105:117-132.
21. Fletcher S.W., Elmore J.G. False-positive mammograms-can the USA learn from Europe?. Lancet 2005, 365:7-8.
22. Lindfors K.K., O'Connor J., Parker R.A., et al. False-positive screening mammograms: effect of immediate versus later work-up on patient stress. Radiology 2001, 218:247-253.
23. Brewer N.T., Salz T., Lillie S.E., et al. Systematic review: the long-term effects of false-positive mammograms. Ann Intern Med 2007, 146:502-510.
24. Allen S. Cancer scares grow as screening rises better tests sought to reduce anxiety. The Boston Globe 2007.
25. Nelson H.D., Tyne K., Naik A., et al. Screening for breast cancer: an update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2009, 151:727-737. W237-W742.
26. Asch D.A., Jedrziewski M.K., Christakis N.A., et al. Response rates to mail surveys published in medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol 1997, 50:1129-1136.