BACKGROUND: Radiologists differ in their ability to interpret screening mammograms accurately. We investigated the relationship of radiologist characteristics to actual performance from 1996 to 2001. METHODS: Screening mammograms (n = 469,512) interpreted by 124 radiologists were linked to cancer outcome data. The radiologists completed a survey that included questions on demographics, malpractice concerns, years of experience interpreting mammograms, and the number of mammograms read annually. We used receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis to analyze variables associated with sensitivity, specificity, and the combination of the two, adjusting for patient variables that affect performance. All P values are two-sided. RESULTS: Within 1 year of the mammogram, 2402 breast cancers were identified. Relative to low annual interpretive volume (< or =1000 mammograms), greater interpretive volume was associated with higher sensitivity (P = .001; odds ratio [OR] for moderate volume [1001-2000] = 1.68, 95% CI = 1.18 to 2.39; OR for high volume [>2000] = 1.89, 95% CI = 1.36 to 2.63). Specificity decreased with volume (OR for 1001-2000 = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.52 to 0.83; OR for more than 2000 = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.60 to 0.96), compared with 1000 or less (P = .002). Greater number of years of experience interpreting mammograms was associated with lower sensitivity (P = .001), but higher specificity (P = .003). ROC analysis using the ordinal BI-RADS interpretation showed an association between accuracy and both previous mammographic history (P = .012) and breast density (P<.001). No association was observed between accuracy and years interpreting mammograms (P = .34) or mammography volume (P = .94), after adjusting for variables that affect the threshold for calling a mammogram positive. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence that greater volume or experience at interpreting mammograms is associated with better performance. However, they may affect sensitivity and specificity, possibly by determining the threshold for calling a mammogram positive. Increasing volume requirements is unlikely to improve overall mammography performance.
BACKGROUND: Radiologists differ in their ability to interpret screening mammograms accurately. We investigated the relationship of radiologist characteristics to actual performance from 1996 to 2001. METHODS: Screening mammograms (n = 469,512) interpreted by 124 radiologists were linked to cancer outcome data. The radiologists completed a survey that included questions on demographics, malpractice concerns, years of experience interpreting mammograms, and the number of mammograms read annually. We used receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis to analyze variables associated with sensitivity, specificity, and the combination of the two, adjusting for patient variables that affect performance. All P values are two-sided. RESULTS: Within 1 year of the mammogram, 2402 breast cancers were identified. Relative to low annual interpretive volume (< or =1000 mammograms), greater interpretive volume was associated with higher sensitivity (P = .001; odds ratio [OR] for moderate volume [1001-2000] = 1.68, 95% CI = 1.18 to 2.39; OR for high volume [>2000] = 1.89, 95% CI = 1.36 to 2.63). Specificity decreased with volume (OR for 1001-2000 = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.52 to 0.83; OR for more than 2000 = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.60 to 0.96), compared with 1000 or less (P = .002). Greater number of years of experience interpreting mammograms was associated with lower sensitivity (P = .001), but higher specificity (P = .003). ROC analysis using the ordinal BI-RADS interpretation showed an association between accuracy and both previous mammographic history (P = .012) and breast density (P<.001). No association was observed between accuracy and years interpreting mammograms (P = .34) or mammography volume (P = .94), after adjusting for variables that affect the threshold for calling a mammogram positive. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence that greater volume or experience at interpreting mammograms is associated with better performance. However, they may affect sensitivity and specificity, possibly by determining the threshold for calling a mammogram positive. Increasing volume requirements is unlikely to improve overall mammography performance.
Authors: R D Rosenberg; B C Yankaskas; W C Hunt; R Ballard-Barbash; N Urban; V L Ernster; K Kerlikowske; B Geller; P A Carney; S Taplin Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2000-12 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Patricia A Carney; Joann G Elmore; Linn A Abraham; Martha S Gerrity; R Edward Hendrick; Stephen H Taplin; William E Barlow; Gary R Cutter; Steven P Poplack; Carl J D'Orsi Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2004 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Aneesa S Majid; Ellen Shaw de Paredes; Richard D Doherty; Neil R Sharma; Xavier Salvador Journal: Radiographics Date: 2003 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: R D Rosenberg; W C Hunt; M R Williamson; F D Gilliland; P W Wiest; C A Kelsey; C R Key; M N Linver Journal: Radiology Date: 1998-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Sandy A Napel; Christopher F Beaulieu; Cesar Rodriguez; Jingyu Cui; Jiajing Xu; Ankit Gupta; Daniel Korenblum; Hayit Greenspan; Yongjun Ma; Daniel L Rubin Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-05-26 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Brandon D Gallas; Heang-Ping Chan; Carl J D'Orsi; Lori E Dodd; Maryellen L Giger; David Gur; Elizabeth A Krupinski; Charles E Metz; Kyle J Myers; Nancy A Obuchowski; Berkman Sahiner; Alicia Y Toledano; Margarita L Zuley Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2012-02-03 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Jacqueline R Halladay; Bonnie C Yankaskas; J Michael Bowling; Camille Alexander Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Laura E Ichikawa; William E Barlow; Melissa L Anderson; Stephen H Taplin; Berta M Geller; R James Brenner Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-05-26 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Joann G Elmore; Andrea J Cook; Andy Bogart; Patricia A Carney; Berta M Geller; Stephen H Taplin; Diana S M Buist; Tracy Onega; Christoph I Lee; Diana L Miglioretti Journal: Clin Imaging Date: 2016-07-01 Impact factor: 1.605
Authors: Patricia A Carney; Andrea J Cook; Diana L Miglioretti; Stephen A Feig; Erin Aiello Bowles; Berta M Geller; Karla Kerlikowske; Mark Kettler; Tracy Onega; Joann G Elmore Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2011-10-15 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Solveig Hofvind; Pamela M Vacek; Joan Skelly; Donald L Weaver; Berta M Geller Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2008-07-29 Impact factor: 13.506