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
. 2015 Mar;22(3):278-89.
doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2014.09.013. Epub 2014 Nov 27.

The influence of mammographic technologists on radiologists' ability to interpret screening mammograms in community practice

Louise M Henderson  1 , Thad Benefield  2 , Mary W Marsh  2 , Bruce F Schroeder  3 , Danielle D Durham  4 , Bonnie C Yankaskas  2 , J Michael Bowling  5
Affiliations

The influence of mammographic technologists on radiologists' ability to interpret screening mammograms in community practice

Louise M Henderson et al. Acad Radiol. 2015 Mar.

Abstract

Rationale and objectives: To determine whether the mammographic technologist has an effect on the radiologists' interpretative performance of screening mammography in community practice.

Materials and methods: In this institutional review board-approved retrospective cohort study, we included Carolina Mammography Registry data from 372 radiologists and 356 mammographic technologists from 1994 to 2009 who performed 1,003,276 screening mammograms. Measures of interpretative performance (recall rate, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value [PPV1], and cancer detection rate [CDR]) were ascertained prospectively with cancer outcomes collected from the state cancer registry and pathology reports. To determine if the mammographic technologist influenced the radiologists' performance, we used mixed effects logistic regression models, including a radiologist-specific random effect and taking into account the clustering of examinations across women, separately for screen-film mammography (SFM) and full-field digital mammography (FFDM).

Results: Of the 356 mammographic technologists included, 343 performed 889,347 SFM examinations, 51 performed 113,929 FFDM examinations, and 38 performed both SFM and FFDM examinations. A total of 4328 cancers were reported for SFM and 564 cancers for FFDM. The technologists had a statistically significant effect on the radiologists' recall rate, sensitivity, specificity, and CDR for both SFM and FFDM (P values <.01). For PPV1, variability by technologist was observed for SFM (P value <.0001) but not for FFDM (P value = .088).

Conclusions: The interpretative performance of radiologists in screening mammography varies substantially by the technologist performing the examination. Additional studies should aim to identify technologist characteristics that may explain this variation.

Keywords: Mammography; observer variation; sensitivity and specificity.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Model-based smoothed histograms of screening mammography sensitivity for the 356 technologists by modality (SFM and FFDM) with solid vertical lines at 25th, 50th, and 75th quartiles; A. SFM, B. FFDM.
Figure 1
Figure 1
Model-based smoothed histograms of screening mammography sensitivity for the 356 technologists by modality (SFM and FFDM) with solid vertical lines at 25th, 50th, and 75th quartiles; A. SFM, B. FFDM.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Model-based smoothed histograms of screening mammography specificity for the 356 technologists by modality (SFM and FFDM) with solid vertical lines at 25th, 50th, and 75th quartiles; A. SFM, B. FFDM.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Model-based smoothed histograms of screening mammography specificity for the 356 technologists by modality (SFM and FFDM) with solid vertical lines at 25th, 50th, and 75th quartiles; A. SFM, B. FFDM.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Model-based smoothed histograms of screening mammography positive predictive value for the 356 technologists by modality (SFM and FFDM) with solid vertical lines at 25th, 50th, and 75th quartiles; A. SFM, B. FFDM.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Model-based smoothed histograms of screening mammography positive predictive value for the 356 technologists by modality (SFM and FFDM) with solid vertical lines at 25th, 50th, and 75th quartiles; A. SFM, B. FFDM.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Model-based smoothed histograms of screening mammography recall rate for the 356 technologists by modality (SFM and FFDM) with solid vertical lines at 25th, 50th, and 75th quartiles; A. SFM, B. FFDM.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Model-based smoothed histograms of screening mammography recall rate for the 356 technologists by modality (SFM and FFDM) with solid vertical lines at 25th, 50th, and 75th quartiles; A. SFM, B. FFDM.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Model-based smoothed histograms of screening mammography cancer detection rate for the 356 technologists by modality (SFM and FFDM) with solid vertical lines at 25th, 50th, and 75th quartiles; A. SFM, B. FFDM.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Model-based smoothed histograms of screening mammography cancer detection rate for the 356 technologists by modality (SFM and FFDM) with solid vertical lines at 25th, 50th, and 75th quartiles; A. SFM, B. FFDM.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Society AC, editor. American Cancer Society. What are the key statistics about breast cancer? 2013.
    1. National Cancer Institute. Breast Cancer Screening (PDQ) Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute; 2010.
    1. Miglioretti DL, Smith-Bindman R, Abraham L, et al. Radiologist characteristics associated with interpretive performance of diagnostic mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99:1854–1863. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Elmore JG, Miglioretti DL, Reisch LM, et al. Screening mammograms by community radiologists: variability in false-positive rates. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94:1373–1380. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Barlow WE, Chi C, Carney PA, et al. Accuracy of screening mammography interpretation by characteristics of radiologists. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004;96:1840–1850. - PMC - PubMed