Radiologist Characteristics Associated With Interpretive Performance of Diagnostic Mammography
Open Access
- 19 December 2007
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute
- Vol. 99 (24), 1854-1863
- https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djm238
Abstract
Extensive variability has been noted in the interpretive performance of screening mammography; however, less is known about variability in diagnostic mammography performance. We examined the performance of 123 radiologists who interpreted 35895 diagnostic mammography examinations that were obtained to evaluate a breast problem from January 1, 1996, through December 31, 2003, at 72 facilities that contribute data to the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. We modeled the influence of radiologist characteristics on the sensitivity and false-positive rate of diagnostic mammography, adjusting for patient characteristics by use of a Bayesian hierarchical logistic regression model. The median sensitivity was 79% (range = 27%–100%) and the median false-positive rate was 4.3% (range = 0%–16%). Radiologists in academic medical centers, compared with other radiologists, had higher sensitivity (88%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 77% to 94%, versus 76%, 95% CI = 72% to 79%; odds ratio [OR] = 5.41, 95% Bayesian posterior credible interval [BPCI] = 1.55 to 21.51) with a smaller increase in their false-positive rates (7.8%, 95% CI = 4.8% to 12.7%, versus 4.2%, 95% CI = 3.8% to 4.7%; OR = 1.73, 95% BPCI = 1.05 to 2.67) and a borderline statistically significant improvement in accuracy (OR = 3.01, 95% BPCI = 0.97 to 12.15). Radiologists spending 20% or more of their time on breast imaging had statistically significantly higher sensitivity than those spending less time on breast imaging (80%, 95% CI = 76% to 83%, versus 70%, 95% CI = 64% to 75%; OR = 1.60, 95% BPCI = 1.05 to 2.44) with non–statistically significant increased false-positive rates (4.6%, 95% CI = 4.0% to 5.3%, versus 3.9%, 95% CI = 3.3% to 4.6%; OR = 1.17, 95% BPCI = 0.92 to 1.51). More recent training in mammography and more experience performing breast biopsy examinations were associated with a decreased threshold for recalling patients, resulting in similar statistically significant increases in both sensitivity and false-positive rates. We found considerable variation in the interpretive performance of diagnostic mammography across radiologists that was not explained by the characteristics of the patients whose mammograms were interpreted. This variability is concerning and likely affects many women with and without breast cancer.Keywords
This publication has 47 references indexed in Scilit:
- What proportion of breast cancers are detected by mammography in the United States?Cancer Detection Prevention, 2007
- A before and after study of the impact of academic detailing on the use of diagnostic imaging for shoulder complaints in general practiceBMC Family Practice, 2007
- Performance Parameters for Screening and Diagnostic Mammography in a Community Practice: Are There Differences Between Specialists and General Radiologists?American Journal of Roentgenology, 2007
- Changing Physician Practice Behavior to Measure and Improve Clinical OutcomesAmerican Journal of Medical Quality, 2006
- Variation in false-positive rates of mammography reading among 1067 radiologists: a population-based assessmentBreast Cancer Research and Treatment, 2006
- Performance of clinical mammography: A nationwide study from DenmarkInternational Journal of Cancer, 2006
- Volume of screening mammography and performance in the Quebec population-based Breast Cancer Screening ProgramCMAJ : Canadian Medical Association Journal, 2005
- Marginal modeling of multilevel binary data with time-varying covariatesBiostatistics, 2004
- Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium: a national mammography screening and outcomes database.American Journal of Roentgenology, 1997
- Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear modelsBiometrika, 1986