Journal
JNCI-JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE
Volume 96, Issue 24, Pages 1840-1850Publisher
OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djh333
Keywords
-
Categories
Funding
- AHRQ HHS [R01 HS010591, HS-10591] Funding Source: Medline
- NCI NIH HHS [U01 CA063736, R01 CA107623-04, U01 CA086076, CA63731, CA63736, U01 CA063731, U01 CA086082, R01 CA107623, CA86076, K05 CA104699, CA86082] Funding Source: Medline
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Background: Radiologists differ in their ability to interpret screening mammograms accurately. We investigated the relationship of radiologist characteristics to actual performance from 1996 to 2001. Methods: Screening mammograms (n = 469 512) interpreted by 124 radiologists were linked to cancer outcome data. The radiologists completed a survey that included questions on demographics, malpractice concerns, years of experience interpreting mammograms, and the number of mammograms read annually. We used receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis to analyze variables associated with sensitivity, specificity, and the combination of the two, adjusting for patient variables that affect performance. All P values are two-sided. Results: Within 1 year of the mammogram, 2402 breast cancers were identified. Relative to low annual interpretive volume (less than or equal to1000 mammograms), greater interpretive volume was associated with higher sensitivity (P = .001; odds ratio [OR] for moderate volume [1001-2000] = 1.68, 95% CI = 1.18 to 2.39; OR for high volume [>2000] = 1.89, 95% CI = 1.36 to 2.63). Specificity decreased with volume (OR for 1001-2000 = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.52 to 0.83; OR for more than 2000 = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.60 to 0.96), compared with 1000 or less (P = .002). Greater number of years of experience interpreting mammograms was associated with lower sensitivity (P = .001), but higher specificity (P = .003). ROC analysis using the ordinal BI-RADS interpretation showed an association between accuracy and both previous mammographic history (P = .012) and breast density (P < .001). No association was observed between accuracy and years interpreting mammograms (P = .34) or mammography volume (P = .94), after adjusting for variables that affect the threshold for calling a mammogram positive. Conclusions: We found no evidence that greater volume or experience at interpreting mammograms is associated with better performance. However, they may affect sensitivity and specificity, possibly by determining the threshold for calling a mammogram positive. Increasing volume requirements is unlikely to improve overall mammography performance.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available