Literature DB >> 15741572

Physician predictors of mammographic accuracy.

Rebecca Smith-Bindman1, Philip Chu, Diana L Miglioretti, Chris Quale, Robert D Rosenberg, Gary Cutter, Berta Geller, Peter Bacchetti, Edward A Sickles, Karla Kerlikowske.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The association between physician experience and the accuracy of screening mammography in community practice is not well studied. We identified characteristics of U.S. physicians associated with the accuracy of screening mammography.
METHODS: Data were obtained from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium and the American Medical Association Master File. Unadjusted mammography sensitivity and specificity were calculated according to physician characteristics. We modeled mammography sensitivity and specificity by multivariable logistic regression as a function of patient and physician characteristics. All statistical tests were two-sided.
RESULTS: We studied 209 physicians who interpreted 1,220,046 screening mammograms from January 1, 1995, through December 31, 2000, of which 7143 (5.9 per 1000 mammograms) were associated with breast cancer within 12 months of screening. Each physician interpreted a mean of 6011 screening mammograms (95% confidence interval [CI] = 4998 to 6677), including a mean of 34 (95% CI = 28 to 40) from women diagnosed with breast cancer. The mean sensitivity was 77% (range = 29%-97%), and the mean false-positive rate was 10% (range = 1%-29%). After adjustment for the patient characteristics of those whose mammograms they interpreted, physician characteristics were strongly associated with specificity. Higher specificity was associated with at least 25 years (versus less than 10 years) since receipt of a medical degree (for physicians practicing for 25-29 years, odds ratio [OR] = 1.54, 95% CI = 1.14 to 2.08; P = .006), interpretation of 2500-4000 (versus 481-750) screening mammograms annually (OR = 1.30, 95% CI = 1.06 to 1.59; P = .011) and a high focus on screening mammography compared with diagnostic mammography (OR = 1.59, 95% CI = 1.37 to 1.82; P<.001). Higher overall accuracy was associated with more experience and with a higher focus on screening mammography. Compared with physicians who interpret 481-750 mammograms annually and had a low screening focus, physicians who interpret 2500-4000 mammograms annually and had a high screening focus had approximately 50% fewer false-positive examinations and detected a few less cancers.
CONCLUSION: Raising the annual volume requirements in the Mammography Quality Standards Act might improve the overall quality of screening mammography in the United States.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15741572     DOI: 10.1093/jnci/dji060

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst        ISSN: 0027-8874            Impact factor:   13.506


  47 in total

1.  Computer-aided classification of breast masses: performance and interobserver variability of expert radiologists versus residents.

Authors:  Swatee Singh; Jeff Maxwell; Jay A Baker; Jennifer L Nicholas; Joseph Y Lo
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2010-10-22       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Impact of an educational intervention designed to reduce unnecessary recall during screening mammography.

Authors:  Patricia A Carney; Linn Abraham; Andrea Cook; Stephen A Feig; Edward A Sickles; Diana L Miglioretti; Berta M Geller; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2012-06-23       Impact factor: 3.173

3.  Positive predictive value of mammography: comparison of interpretations of screening and diagnostic images by the same radiologist and by different radiologists.

Authors:  Jacqueline R Halladay; Bonnie C Yankaskas; J Michael Bowling; Camille Alexander
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 3.959

4.  Time trends in radiologists' interpretive performance at screening mammography from the community-based Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, 1996-2004.

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

5.  Radiologists' interpretive skills in screening vs. diagnostic mammography: are they related?

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

6.  Comparative effectiveness of digital versus film-screen mammography in community practice in the United States: a cohort study.

Authors:  Karla Kerlikowske; Rebecca A Hubbard; Diana L Miglioretti; Berta M Geller; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Constance D Lehman; Stephen H Taplin; Edward A Sickles
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2011-10-18       Impact factor: 25.391

7.  Cumulative probability of false-positive recall or biopsy recommendation after 10 years of screening mammography: a cohort study.

Authors:  Rebecca A Hubbard; Karla Kerlikowske; Chris I Flowers; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Weiwei Zhu; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2011-10-18       Impact factor: 25.391

8.  Computer-assisted mammography feedback program (CAMFP) an electronic tool for continuing medical education.

Authors:  Nicole Urban; Gary M Longton; Andrea D Crowe; Mariann J Drucker; Constance D Lehman; Susan Peacock; Kimberly A Lowe; Steve B Zeliadt; Marcia A Gaul
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 3.173

9.  Comparing screening mammography for early breast cancer detection in Vermont and Norway.

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

10.  Potentially missed detection with screening mammography: does the quality of radiologist's interpretation vary by patient socioeconomic advantage/disadvantage?

Authors:  Garth H Rauscher; Jenna A Khan; Michael L Berbaum; Emily F Conant
Journal:  Ann Epidemiol       Date:  2013-03-01       Impact factor: 3.797

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.