Literature DB >> 21643887

Effect of radiologist experience on the risk of false-positive results in breast cancer screening programs.

Raquel Zubizarreta Alberdi1, Ana B Fernández Llanes, Raquel Almazán Ortega, Rubén Roman Expósito, Jose M Velarde Collado, Teresa Queiro Verdes, Carmen Natal Ramos, María Ederra Sanz, Dolores Salas Trejo, Xavier Castells Oliveres.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of radiologist experience on the risk of false-positive results in population-based breast cancer screening programmes.
METHODS: We evaluated 1,440,384 single-read screening mammograms, corresponding to 471,112 women aged 45-69 years participating in four Spanish programmes between 1990 and 2006. The mammograms were interpreted by 72 radiologists.
RESULTS: The overall percentage of false-positive results was 5.85% and that for false-positives resulting in an invasive procedure was 0.38%. Both the risk of false-positives overall and of false-positives leading to an invasive procedure significantly decreased (p < 0.001) with greater reading volume in the previous year: OR 0.77 and OR 0.78, respectively, for a reading volume 500-1,999 mammograms and OR 0.59 and OR 0.60 for a reading volume of >14,999 mammograms with respect to the reference category (<500). The risk of both categories of false-positives was also significantly reduced (p < 0.001) as radiologists' years of experience increased: OR 0.96 and OR 0.84, respectively, for 1 year's experience and OR 0.72 and OR 0.73, respectively, for more than 4 years' experience with regard to the category of <1 year's experience.
CONCLUSION: Radiologist experience is a determining factor in the risk of a false-positive result in breast cancer screening.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21643887     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-011-2160-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  19 in total

1.  Standardized abnormal interpretation and cancer detection ratios to assess reading volume and reader performance in a breast screening program.

Authors:  L Kan; I A Olivotto; L J Warren Burhenne; E A Sickles; A J Coldman
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Association of volume and volume-independent factors with accuracy in screening mammogram interpretation.

Authors:  Craig A Beam; Emily F Conant; Edward A Sickles
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2003-02-19       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  Accuracy of screening mammography interpretation by characteristics of radiologists.

Authors:  William E Barlow; Chen Chi; Patricia A Carney; Stephen H Taplin; Carl D'Orsi; Gary Cutter; R Edward Hendrick; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2004-12-15       Impact factor: 13.506

4.  Variation in false-positive rates of mammography reading among 1067 radiologists: a population-based assessment.

Authors:  Alai Tan; Daniel H Freeman; James S Goodwin; Jean L Freeman
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2006-07-04       Impact factor: 4.872

5.  Effect of age and breast density on screening mammograms with false-positive findings.

Authors:  C D Lehman; E White; S Peacock; M J Drucker; N Urban
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 3.959

6.  Ten-year risk of false positive screening mammograms and clinical breast examinations.

Authors:  J G Elmore; M B Barton; V M Moceri; S Polk; P J Arena; S W Fletcher
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1998-04-16       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  Physician predictors of mammographic accuracy.

Authors:  Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Philip Chu; Diana L Miglioretti; Chris Quale; Robert D Rosenberg; Gary Cutter; Berta Geller; Peter Bacchetti; Edward A Sickles; Karla Kerlikowske
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2005-03-02       Impact factor: 13.506

8.  Radiologist characteristics associated with interpretive performance of diagnostic mammography.

Authors:  Diana L Miglioretti; Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Linn Abraham; R James Brenner; Patricia A Carney; Erin J Aiello Bowles; Diana S M Buist; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2007-12-11       Impact factor: 13.506

9.  The cumulative risk of a false-positive recall in the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program.

Authors:  Solveig Hofvind; Steinar Thoresen; Steinar Tretli
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2004-10-01       Impact factor: 6.860

10.  Mammography facility characteristics associated with interpretive accuracy of screening mammography.

Authors:  Stephen Taplin; Linn Abraham; William E Barlow; Joshua J Fenton; Eric A Berns; Patricia A Carney; Gary R Cutter; Edward A Sickles; D'Orsi Carl; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2008-06-10       Impact factor: 13.506

View more
  4 in total

1.  Impact of intermediate mammography assessment on the likelihood of false-positive results in breast cancer screening programmes.

Authors:  Nieves Ascunce; María Ederra; Josu Delfrade; Araceli Baroja; Nieves Erdozain; Raquel Zubizarreta; Dolores Salas; Xavier Castells
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2011-09-08       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Factors Influencing the False Positive Rate in CT Lung Cancer Screening.

Authors:  Mark M Hammer; Suzanne C Byrne; Chung Yin Kong
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2020-09-03       Impact factor: 5.482

3.  Faster and Better: How Anomaly Detection Can Accelerate and Improve Reporting of Head Computed Tomography.

Authors:  Tom Finck; Julia Moosbauer; Monika Probst; Sarah Schlaeger; Madeleine Schuberth; David Schinz; Mehmet Yiğitsoy; Sebastian Byas; Claus Zimmer; Franz Pfister; Benedikt Wiestler
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2022-02-10

4.  Breast Cancer Diagnostic Efficacy in a Developing South-East Asian Country

Authors:  Rhianna L Jackson; Callan R Double; Hayden J Munro; Jessica Lynch; Kriscia A Tapia; Phuong Dung Trieu; Maram Alakhras; Aarthi Ganesan; Thuan Doan Do; Baolin Pauline Soh; Patrick C Brennan; Puslednik Puslednik
Journal:  Asian Pac J Cancer Prev       Date:  2019-03-26
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.