Sara L Jackson1, Linn Abraham2, Diana L Miglioretti2,3, Diana S M Buist2, Karla Kerlikowske4, Tracy Onega5, Patricia A Carney6, Edward A Sickles4, Joann G Elmore1. 1. 1 Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Washington, 325 Ninth Ave, Seattle, WA 98104. 2. 2 Group Health Research Institute, Group Health Cooperative, Seattle, WA. 3. 3 Division of Biostatistics, University of California Davis School of Medicine, Davis, CA. 4. 4 Departments of Medicine and Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA. 5. 5 Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH. 6. 6 Departments of Family Medicine and Public Health & Preventive Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Earlier studies of diagnostic mammography found wide unexplained variability in accuracy among radiologists. We assessed patient and radiologist characteristics associated with the interpretive performance of two types of diagnostic mammography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Radiologists interpreting mammograms in seven regions of the United States were invited to participate in a survey that collected information on their demographics, practice setting, breast imaging experience, and self-reported interpretive volume. Survey data from 244 radiologists were linked to data on 274,401 diagnostic mammograms performed for additional evaluation of a recent abnormal screening mammogram or to evaluate a breast problem, between 1998 and 2008. These data were also linked to patients' risk factors and follow-up data on breast cancer. We measured interpretive performance by false-positive rate, sensitivity, and AUC. Using logistic regression, we evaluated patient and radiologist characteristics associated with false-positive rate and sensitivity for each diagnostic mammogram type. RESULTS: Mammograms performed for additional evaluation of a recent mammogram had an overall false-positive rate of 11.9%, sensitivity of 90.2%, and AUC of 0.894; examinations done to evaluate a breast problem had an overall false-positive rate of 7.6%, sensitivity of 83.9%, and AUC of 0.871. Multiple patient characteristics were associated with measures of interpretive performance, and radiologist academic affiliation was associated with higher sensitivity for both indications for diagnostic mammograms. CONCLUSION: These results indicate the potential for improved radiologist training, using evaluation of their own performance relative to best practices, and for improved clinical outcomes with health care system changes to maximize access to diagnostic mammography interpretation in academic settings.
OBJECTIVE: Earlier studies of diagnostic mammography found wide unexplained variability in accuracy among radiologists. We assessed patient and radiologist characteristics associated with the interpretive performance of two types of diagnostic mammography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Radiologists interpreting mammograms in seven regions of the United States were invited to participate in a survey that collected information on their demographics, practice setting, breast imaging experience, and self-reported interpretive volume. Survey data from 244 radiologists were linked to data on 274,401 diagnostic mammograms performed for additional evaluation of a recent abnormal screening mammogram or to evaluate a breast problem, between 1998 and 2008. These data were also linked to patients' risk factors and follow-up data on breast cancer. We measured interpretive performance by false-positive rate, sensitivity, and AUC. Using logistic regression, we evaluated patient and radiologist characteristics associated with false-positive rate and sensitivity for each diagnostic mammogram type. RESULTS: Mammograms performed for additional evaluation of a recent mammogram had an overall false-positive rate of 11.9%, sensitivity of 90.2%, and AUC of 0.894; examinations done to evaluate a breast problem had an overall false-positive rate of 7.6%, sensitivity of 83.9%, and AUC of 0.871. Multiple patient characteristics were associated with measures of interpretive performance, and radiologist academic affiliation was associated with higher sensitivity for both indications for diagnostic mammograms. CONCLUSION: These results indicate the potential for improved radiologist training, using evaluation of their own performance relative to best practices, and for improved clinical outcomes with health care system changes to maximize access to diagnostic mammography interpretation in academic settings.
Authors: Tamara Miner Haygood; Gary J Whitman; E Neely Atkinson; Rumiana G Nikolova; Sheisa Y Claudio Sandoval; Peter J Dempsey Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Edward A Sickles; Diana L Miglioretti; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Berta M Geller; Jessica W T Leung; Robert D Rosenberg; Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Bonnie C Yankaskas Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 11.105
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
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: Allan Jensen; Berta M Geller; Charlotte C Gard; Diana L Miglioretti; Bonnie Yankaskas; Patricia A Carney; Robert D Rosenberg; Ilse Vejborg; Elsebeth Lynge Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2010-10-15 Impact factor: 7.396