Literature DB >> 26204300

Patient and Radiologist Characteristics Associated With Accuracy of Two Types of Diagnostic Mammograms.

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.   

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.

Entities:  

Keywords:  accuracy; characteristics; diagnostic mammography; patient; radiologist

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26204300      PMCID: PMC4809354          DOI: 10.2214/AJR.14.13672

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  22 in total

1.  Type of hormone therapy and risk of misclassification at mammography screening.

Authors:  Sisse H Njor; Jesper Hallas; Walter Schwartz; Elsebeth Lynge; Anette Tønnes Pedersen
Journal:  Menopause       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 2.953

2.  Examining accuracy of screening mammography using an event order model.

Authors:  Prashni Paliwal; Alan E Gelfand; Linn Abraham; William Barlow; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2006-01-30       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  Results of a survey on digital screening mammography: prevalence, efficiency, and use of ancillary diagnostic AIDS.

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

4.  Comparing the performance of mammography screening in the USA and the UK.

Authors:  Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Diana L Miglioretti; Julietta Patnick; Karla Kerlikowske
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 2.136

5.  Performance benchmarks for diagnostic mammography.

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

6.  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

7.  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

8.  Variability in interpretive performance at screening mammography and radiologists' characteristics associated with accuracy.

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

9.  Decreased accuracy in interpretation of community-based screening mammography for women with multiple clinical risk factors.

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

10.  Performance of diagnostic mammography differs in the United States and Denmark.

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

View more
  4 in total

1.  How Many of the Biopsy Decisions Taken at Inexperienced Breast Radiology Units Were Correct?

Authors:  Özlem Demircioğlu; Meral Uluer; Erkin Arıbal
Journal:  J Breast Health       Date:  2017-01-01

2.  A machine learning model based on readers' characteristics to predict their performances in reading screening mammograms.

Authors:  Ziba Gandomkar; Sarah J Lewis; Tong Li; Ernest U Ekpo; Patrick C Brennan
Journal:  Breast Cancer       Date:  2022-02-05       Impact factor: 3.307

3.  Performance of a subsidised mammographic screening programme in Malaysia, a middle-income Asian country.

Authors:  Marianne Lee; Shivaani Mariapun; Nadia Rajaram; Soo-Hwang Teo; Cheng-Har Yip
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2017-01-28       Impact factor: 3.295

Review 4.  Errors in Mammography Cannot be Solved Through Technology Alone

Authors:  Ernest Usang Ekpo; Maram Alakhras; Patrick Brennan
Journal:  Asian Pac J Cancer Prev       Date:  2018-02-26
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.