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
. 2010 Jul;256(1):74-82.
doi: 10.1148/radiol.10091881. Epub 2010 May 26.

Time trends in radiologists' interpretive performance at screening mammography from the community-based Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, 1996-2004

Affiliations

Time trends in radiologists' interpretive performance at screening mammography from the community-based Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, 1996-2004

Laura E Ichikawa et al. Radiology. 2010 Jul.

Abstract

Purpose: To examine time trends in radiologists' interpretive performance at screening mammography between 1996 and 2004.

Materials and methods: All study procedures were institutional review board approved and HIPAA compliant. Data were collected on subsequent screening mammograms obtained from 1996 to 2004 in women aged 40-79 years who were followed up for 1 year for breast cancer. Recall rate, sensitivity, and specificity were examined annually. Generalized estimating equation (GEE) and random-effects models were used to test for linear trend. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), tumor histologic findings, and size of the largest dimension or diameter of the tumor were also examined.

Results: Data on 2,542,049 subsequent screening mammograms and 12,498 cancers diagnosed in the follow-up period were included in this study. Recall rate increased from 6.7% to 8.6%, sensitivity increased from 71.4% to 83.8%, and specificity decreased from 93.6% to 91.7%. In GEE models, adjusted odds ratios per calendar year were 1.04 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02, 1.05) for recall rate, 1.09 (95% CI: 1.07. 1.12) for sensitivity, and 0.96 (95% CI: 0.95, 0.98) for specificity (P < .001 for all). Random-effects model results were similar. The AUC increased over time: 0.869 (95% CI: 0.861, 0.877) for 1996-1998, 0.884 (95% CI: 0.879, 0.890) for 1999-2001, and 0.891 (95% CI: 0.885, 0.896) for 2002-2004 (P < .001). Tumor histologic findings and size remained constant.

Conclusion: Recall rate and sensitivity for screening mammograms increased, whereas specificity decreased from 1996 to 2004 among women with a prior mammogram. This trend remained after accounting for risk factors. The net effect was an improvement in overall discrimination, a measure of the probability that a mammogram with cancer in the follow-up period has a higher Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System assessment category than does a mammogram without cancer in the follow-up period.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Authors stated no financial relationship to disclose.

Figures

Figure 1:
Figure 1:
Radiologists’ interpretive performance measures at subsequent screening mammography according to calendar year. Left y-axis: Sensitivity and specificity. Right y-axis: Recall rate. Values above the < and > symbols are on the left y-axis, and values below the symbols are on the right y-axis.
Figure 2:
Figure 2:
Empirical ROC curves for radiologists’ interpretive performance at subsequent screening mammography according to calendar year category. Area under the empirical curve is 0.869 for 1996–1998 (blue), 0.884 for 1999–2001 (red), and 0.891 for 2002–2004 (green).

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Carney PA, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC, et al. Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med 2003;138(3):168–175 - PubMed
    1. Yankaskas BC, Taplin SH, Ichikawa L, et al. Association between mammography timing and measures of screening performance in the United States. Radiology 2005;234(2):363–373 - PubMed
    1. Ballard-Barbash R, Taplin SH, Yankaskas BC, et al. Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium: a national mammography screening and outcomes database. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997;169(4):1001–1008 - PubMed
    1. Ernster VL, Ballard-Barbash R, Barlow WE, et al. Detection of ductal carcinoma in situ in women undergoing screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94(20):1546–1554 - PubMed
    1. Taplin SH, Ichikawa LE, Kerlikowske K, et al. Concordance of breast imaging reporting and data system assessments and management recommendations in screening mammography. Radiology 2002;222(2):529–535 - PubMed