Louise M Henderson1, Thad Benefield2, Mary W Marsh2, Bruce F Schroeder3, Danielle D Durham4, Bonnie C Yankaskas2, J Michael Bowling5. 1. Department of Radiology, The University of North Carolina, CB 7515, Chapel Hill, NC 27599; Department of Epidemiology, The University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Electronic address: Louise_Henderson@med.unc.edu. 2. Department of Radiology, The University of North Carolina, CB 7515, Chapel Hill, NC 27599. 3. Department of Radiology, The University of North Carolina, CB 7515, Chapel Hill, NC 27599; Carolina Breast Imaging Specialists, Greenville, North Carolina; Department of Radiology, The Brody School of Medicine at East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina; Department of Oncology, The Brody School of Medicine at East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina. 4. Department of Epidemiology, The University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 5. Department of Health Behavior, The University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Abstract
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To determine whether the mammographic technologist has an effect on the radiologists' interpretative performance of screening mammography in community practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this institutional review board-approved retrospective cohort study, we included Carolina Mammography Registry data from 372 radiologists and 356 mammographic technologists from 1994 to 2009 who performed 1,003,276 screening mammograms. Measures of interpretative performance (recall rate, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value [PPV1], and cancer detection rate [CDR]) were ascertained prospectively with cancer outcomes collected from the state cancer registry and pathology reports. To determine if the mammographic technologist influenced the radiologists' performance, we used mixed effects logistic regression models, including a radiologist-specific random effect and taking into account the clustering of examinations across women, separately for screen-film mammography (SFM) and full-field digital mammography (FFDM). RESULTS: Of the 356 mammographic technologists included, 343 performed 889,347 SFM examinations, 51 performed 113,929 FFDM examinations, and 38 performed both SFM and FFDM examinations. A total of 4328 cancers were reported for SFM and 564 cancers for FFDM. The technologists had a statistically significant effect on the radiologists' recall rate, sensitivity, specificity, and CDR for both SFM and FFDM (P values <.01). For PPV1, variability by technologist was observed for SFM (P value <.0001) but not for FFDM (P value = .088). CONCLUSIONS: The interpretative performance of radiologists in screening mammography varies substantially by the technologist performing the examination. Additional studies should aim to identify technologist characteristics that may explain this variation.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To determine whether the mammographic technologist has an effect on the radiologists' interpretative performance of screening mammography in community practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this institutional review board-approved retrospective cohort study, we included Carolina Mammography Registry data from 372 radiologists and 356 mammographic technologists from 1994 to 2009 who performed 1,003,276 screening mammograms. Measures of interpretative performance (recall rate, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value [PPV1], and cancer detection rate [CDR]) were ascertained prospectively with cancer outcomes collected from the state cancer registry and pathology reports. To determine if the mammographic technologist influenced the radiologists' performance, we used mixed effects logistic regression models, including a radiologist-specific random effect and taking into account the clustering of examinations across women, separately for screen-film mammography (SFM) and full-field digital mammography (FFDM). RESULTS: Of the 356 mammographic technologists included, 343 performed 889,347 SFM examinations, 51 performed 113,929 FFDM examinations, and 38 performed both SFM and FFDM examinations. A total of 4328 cancers were reported for SFM and 564 cancers for FFDM. The technologists had a statistically significant effect on the radiologists' recall rate, sensitivity, specificity, and CDR for both SFM and FFDM (P values <.01). For PPV1, variability by technologist was observed for SFM (P value <.0001) but not for FFDM (P value = .088). CONCLUSIONS: The interpretative performance of radiologists in screening mammography varies substantially by the technologist performing the examination. Additional studies should aim to identify technologist characteristics that may explain this variation.
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: Stephen H Taplin; Laura E Ichikawa; Karla Kerlikowske; Virginia L Ernster; Robert D Rosenberg; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Patricia A Carney; Berta M Geller; Nicole Urban; Mark B Dignan; William E Barlow; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Edward A Sickles Journal: Radiology Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Diana S M Buist; Melissa L Anderson; Sebastien J P A Haneuse; Edward A Sickles; Robert A Smith; Patricia A Carney; Stephen H Taplin; Robert D Rosenberg; Berta M Geller; Tracy L Onega; Barbara S Monsees; Lawrence W Bassett; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Joann G Elmore; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana L Miglioretti Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-02-22 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Diana L Miglioretti; Charlotte C Gard; Patricia A Carney; Tracy L Onega; Diana S M Buist; Edward A Sickles; Karla Kerlikowske; Robert D Rosenberg; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Berta M Geller; Joann G Elmore Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-09-29 Impact factor: 11.105
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
Authors: Joann G Elmore; Sara L Jackson; Linn Abraham; Diana L Miglioretti; Patricia A Carney; Berta M Geller; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Karla Kerlikowske; Tracy Onega; Robert D Rosenberg; Edward A Sickles; Diana S M Buist Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-10-28 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Andrea J Cook; Joann G Elmore; Diana L Miglioretti; Edward A Sickles; Erin J Aiello Bowles; Gary R Cutter; Patricia A Carney Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2009-09-09 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: L E M Duijm; M W J Louwman; J H Groenewoud; L V van de Poll-Franse; J Fracheboud; J W Coebergh Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2009-03-03 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Louise M Henderson; Mary W Marsh; Thad Benefield; Elizabeth Pearsall; Danielle Durham; Bruce F Schroeder; J Michael Bowling; Cheryl A Viglione; Bonnie C Yankaskas Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Rachel Farber; Nehmat Houssami; Sally Wortley; Gemma Jacklyn; Michael L Marinovich; Kevin McGeechan; Alexandra Barratt; Katy Bell Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2021-01-04 Impact factor: 13.506