Time trends in radiologists' interpretive performance at screening mammography from the community-based Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, 1996-2004
- PMID: 20505059
- PMCID: PMC2897687
- DOI: 10.1148/radiol.10091881
Time trends in radiologists' interpretive performance at screening mammography from the community-based Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, 1996-2004
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.
Conflict of interest statement
Authors stated no financial relationship to disclose.
Figures


Similar articles
-
Effect of radiologists' diagnostic work-up volume on interpretive performance.Radiology. 2014 Nov;273(2):351-64. doi: 10.1148/radiol.14132806. Epub 2014 Jun 24. Radiology. 2014. PMID: 24960110 Free PMC article.
-
Variability in interpretive performance at screening mammography and radiologists' characteristics associated with accuracy.Radiology. 2009 Dec;253(3):641-51. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2533082308. Epub 2009 Oct 28. Radiology. 2009. PMID: 19864507 Free PMC article.
-
Does litigation influence medical practice? The influence of community radiologists' medical malpractice perceptions and experience on screening mammography.Radiology. 2005 Jul;236(1):37-46. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2361040512. Radiology. 2005. PMID: 15987961 Free PMC article.
-
Radiologists' interpretive efficiency and variability in true- and false-positive detection when screen-reading with tomosynthesis (3D-mammography) relative to standard mammography in population screening.Breast. 2015 Dec;24(6):687-93. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2015.08.012. Epub 2015 Oct 1. Breast. 2015. PMID: 26433751 Review.
-
Does the availability of prior mammograms improve radiologists' observer performance?-a scoping review.BJR Open. 2023 Oct 18;5(1):20230038. doi: 10.1259/bjro.20230038. eCollection 2023. BJR Open. 2023. PMID: 37942498 Free PMC article.
Cited by
-
Estimation of overdiagnosis using short-term trends and lead time estimates uncontaminated by overdiagnosed cases: Results from the Norwegian Breast Screening Programme.J Med Screen. 2016 Dec;23(4):192-202. doi: 10.1177/0969141315623980. Epub 2016 Mar 2. J Med Screen. 2016. PMID: 26940963 Free PMC article.
-
Impact of computer-aided detection systems on radiologist accuracy with digital mammography.AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014 Oct;203(4):909-16. doi: 10.2214/AJR.12.10187. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014. PMID: 25247960 Free PMC article.
-
A Utility/Cost Analysis of Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Algorithms.Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng. 2016 Feb 27;9787:97871J. doi: 10.1117/12.2217850. Epub 2016 Mar 24. Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng. 2016. PMID: 27335532 Free PMC article.
-
Modeling the natural history of ductal carcinoma in situ based on population data.Breast Cancer Res. 2020 May 27;22(1):53. doi: 10.1186/s13058-020-01287-6. Breast Cancer Res. 2020. PMID: 32460821 Free PMC article.
-
Breast Tumor Prognostic Characteristics and Biennial vs Annual Mammography, Age, and Menopausal Status.JAMA Oncol. 2015 Nov;1(8):1069-77. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.3084. JAMA Oncol. 2015. PMID: 26501844 Free PMC article.
References
-
- 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
-
- 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
-
- 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
-
- 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
-
- 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
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical