Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2001 Jan-Feb;101(1-2):44-7.

[Assessment of diagnostic accuracy of mammography carried out for secondary prevention. Results of a test with a sample caseload conducted by 75 Italian radiologists]

[Article in Italian]
Affiliations
  • PMID: 11360752

[Assessment of diagnostic accuracy of mammography carried out for secondary prevention. Results of a test with a sample caseload conducted by 75 Italian radiologists]

[Article in Italian]
D Morrone et al. Radiol Med. 2001 Jan-Feb.

Abstract

Purpose: To report the results of a test performed by 75 volunteer radiologists involved in screening program in Italy.

Material and methods: The test includes 12 screening detected cancers and 6 cancers (4 screening detected and 2 interval lesions) with minimal signs at review of a previous negative mammogram. Data on previous experience in mammography (years of activity, years of screening activity, total number of mammograms read and number of mammograms read per year) were also collected.

Results: Standards for passing the test were at least 83.3% for sensitivity for screening detected cancers and at most 30% for recall rate among negative cases. Mean sensitivity was 83.9% (median 83.3%, range 50-100%) and mean recall rate was 16.3 (median 14.4%, range 3.8-42.4%). In all, 44 radiologists (58.7%) passed the test. On average 1.4 of 6 cancers with minimal signs were correctly identified. According to readers' experience (at least 5 years in mammographic activity, at least 3 years in screening mammography, at least 10,000 total mammograms read, at least 5,000 per year) radiologists were classified as expert (13) or not (62): no difference in test performance was observed between the two groups. The only significant association occurred for years of mammographic activity and sensitivity.

Discussion and conclusions: Test results suggest the need for proper training of radiologists prior to involvement in a screening program. Seeding proficiency tests with cancers with minimal signs was of no benefit as far as evaluation is concerned.

PubMed Disclaimer

LinkOut - more resources