International variation in screening mammography interpretations in community-based programs.

BACKGROUND Variations in mammography interpretations may have important clinical and economic implications. To evaluate international variability in mammography interpretation, we analyzed published reports from community-based screening programs from around the world. METHODS A total of 32 publications were identified in MEDLINE that fit the study inclusion criteria. Data abstracted from the publications included features of the population screened, examination technique, and clinical outcomes, including the percentage of mammograms judged to be abnormal, positive predictive value of an abnormal mammogram (PPV(A)), positive predictive value of a biopsy performed (PPV(B)), and percentages of breast cancer patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and minimal disease (DCIS and/or tumor size < or =10 mm). North American screening programs were compared with those from other countries using meta-regression analysis. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS Wide ranges were noted for the percentage of mammograms judged to be abnormal (1.2%-15.0%), for PPV(A) (3.4%-48.7%), for PPV(B) (5.0%-85.2%), for percentage diagnosed with DCIS (4.3%-68.1%), and for percentage diagnosed with minimal disease (14.0%-80.6%). The percentage of mammograms judged to be abnormal were 2-4 percentage points higher in North American screening programs than they were in programs from other countries, after adjusting for covariates such as percentage of women who were less than 50 years of age and calendar year in which the mammogram was performed. The percentage of mammograms judged to be abnormal had a negative association with PPV(A) and PPV(B) (both P<.001) and a positive association with the frequency of DCIS cases diagnosed (P =.008) and the number of DCIS cases diagnosed per 1000 screens (P =.024); no consistent relationship was observed with the proportion of breast cancer diagnoses reported as having minimal disease or the number of minimal disease cases diagnosed per 1000 screens. CONCLUSION North American screening programs appear to interpret a higher percentage of mammograms as abnormal than programs from other countries without evident benefit in the yield of cancers detected per 1000 screens, although an increase in DCIS detection was noted.

[1]  Karla Kerlikowske,et al.  Comparison of screening mammography in the United States and the United kingdom. , 2003, JAMA.

[2]  Joann G Elmore,et al.  Does practice make perfect when interpreting mammography? Part II. , 2003, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[3]  Emily F Conant,et al.  Association of volume and volume-independent factors with accuracy in screening mammogram interpretation. , 2003, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[4]  David Moher,et al.  The STARD Statement for Reporting Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy: Explanation and Elaboration , 2003, Annals of Internal Medicine [serial online].

[5]  David Moher,et al.  Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy. , 2003, Clinical chemistry.

[6]  J. Elmore,et al.  Screening mammograms by community radiologists: variability in false-positive rates. , 2002, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[7]  J. Elmore,et al.  Does practice make perfect when interpreting mammography? , 2002, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[8]  Helen C. Cowley,et al.  Improving the accuracy of mammography: volume and outcome relationships. , 2002, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[9]  A. Strunk,et al.  Medicolegal considerations in the diagnosis of breast cancer. , 2002, Obstetrics and gynecology clinics of North America.

[10]  G. Severi,et al.  A breast cancer screening programme operating in a liberal health care system: The Luxembourg Mammography Programme, 1992–1997 , 2002, International journal of cancer.

[11]  T. Freer,et al.  Screening mammography with computer-aided detection: prospective study of 12,860 patients in a community breast center. , 2001, Radiology.

[12]  R. Warren,et al.  Lobular carcinoma in situ on core biopsy-what is the clinical significance? , 2001, Clinical radiology.

[13]  J. Elmore,et al.  Effect of False-Positive Mammograms on Interval Breast Cancer Screening in a Health Maintenance Organization , 1999, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[14]  G. Fairbrother,et al.  The impact of physician bonuses, enhanced fees, and feedback on childhood immunization coverage rates. , 1999, American journal of public health.

[15]  S. Sharp,et al.  Explaining heterogeneity in meta-analysis: a comparison of methods. , 1997, Statistics in medicine.

[16]  P. Dean,et al.  Screening mammography in Finland--1.5 million examinations with 97 percent specificity. Mammography Working Group, Radiological Society of Finland. , 1999, Acta oncologica.

[17]  K. Kerlikowske,et al.  Variability and accuracy in mammographic interpretation using the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. , 1998, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[18]  A. Yip,et al.  The potential impact of breast cancer screening in Hong Kong. , 1998, The Australian and New Zealand journal of surgery.

[19]  M. de Vriendt,et al.  Screening for breast cancer in Ghent, Belgium: first results of a programme involving the existing health services. , 1998, European journal of cancer.

[20]  E. Pisano,et al.  Screening behavior of women after a false-positive mammogram. , 1998, Radiology.

[21]  J. Elmore,et al.  Does diagnostic accuracy in mammography depend on radiologists' experience? , 1998, Journal of women's health.

[22]  J. Elmore,et al.  Ten-year risk of false positive screening mammograms and clinical breast examinations. , 1998, The New England journal of medicine.

[23]  D. Salas,et al.  Breast cancer screening: first round in the population-based program in Valencia, Spain. Collaborative Group of Readers of the Breast Cancer Screening Program of the Valencia Community. , 1998, Radiology.

[24]  K. Kerlikowske,et al.  Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium: a national mammography screening and outcomes database. , 1997, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[25]  J. Litherland,et al.  The effect of hormone replacement therapy on recall rate in the National Health Service Breast Screening Programme. , 1997, Clinical Radiology.

[26]  J. Clinton.  Agency for Health Care Policy and Research. , 1997, Asian American and Pacific Islander journal of health.

[27]  N. Perry,et al.  European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Mammography Screening , 1996 .

[28]  F. Gilliland,et al.  The New Mexico Mammography Project: Screening mammography performance in Albuquerque, New Mexico, 1991 to 1993 , 1996, Cancer.

[29]  F. Callea,et al.  Results. of a Mammographic and Clinical Screening in a Health District (USSL) of Brescia, Italy , 1996, Tumori.

[30]  K. Kerlikowske,et al.  Likelihood ratios for modern screening mammography. Risk of breast cancer based on age and mammographic interpretation. , 1996, JAMA.

[31]  G. Kenney,et al.  Defensive medicine and tort reform: new evidence in an old bottle. , 1996, Journal of health politics, policy and law.

[32]  C. J. Rosenquist,et al.  The use of low-osmolar contrast agents: technological change and defensive medicine. , 1996, Journal of health politics, policy and law.

[33]  A. Russell Localio,et al.  Measuring defensive medicine using clinical scenario surveys. , 1996, Journal of health politics, policy and law.

[34]  R. Warren,et al.  Mammography screening: an incremental cost effectiveness analysis of double versus single reading of mammograms , 1996, BMJ.

[35]  C. E. Hoffmann,et al.  The South Australian Breast X-Ray Service: results from a statewide mammographic screening programme. , 1996, British Journal of Cancer.

[36]  S. Duffy,et al.  The value of the second view in screening mammography. , 1996, The British journal of radiology.

[37]  Craig A. Beam,et al.  Variability in the interpretation of screening mammograms by US radiologists. Findings from a national sample. , 1996, Archives of internal medicine.

[38]  G A Colditz,et al.  Understanding research synthesis (meta-analysis). , 1996, Annual review of public health.

[39]  P E Shile,et al.  Variability in the interpretation of screening mammograms by US radiologists. , 1996, Academic radiology.

[40]  E A Sickles,et al.  Screening mammography in community practice: positive predictive value of abnormal findings and yield of follow-up diagnostic procedures. , 1995, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[41]  Jo M. Kendrick,et al.  Quality Determinants of Mammography, Clinical Practice Guideline , 1995 .

[42]  S. Duffy,et al.  Comparison of single reading with double reading of mammograms, and change in effectiveness with experience. , 1995, The British journal of radiology.

[43]  J. Daurès,et al.  Herault breast screening programme: results after 30 months of a mobile French schedule. , 1995, European Journal of Cancer Prevention.

[44]  R. Smith,et al.  The mammography audit: a primer for the mammography quality standards act (MQSA). , 1995, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[45]  D. Spandidos,et al.  Ras oncogene activation in benign and malignant colorectal tumours. , 1995, Tumori.

[46]  D'Orsi Cj,et al.  Variability in the interpretation of mammograms. , 1995 .

[47]  H. D. de Koning,et al.  Nation‐wide breast cancer screening in the Netherlands: Support for breast‐cancer mortality reduction , 1995, International journal of cancer.

[48]  N Urban,et al.  Stage, age, comorbidity, and direct costs of colon, prostate, and breast cancer care. , 1995, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[49]  R. Warren,et al.  Mammography screening: an incremental cost effectiveness analysis of two view versus one view procedures in London. , 1995, Journal of epidemiology and community health.

[50]  P. Delrio,et al.  The First Breast Cancer Screening Program in Southern Italy: Preliminary Results from Three Municipalities of the Naples Province , 1995, Tumori.

[51]  J A Swets,et al.  Variability in the interpretation of mammograms. , 1995, The New England journal of medicine.

[52]  J. Elmore,et al.  Variability in radiologists' interpretations of mammograms. , 1994, The New England journal of medicine.

[53]  E. Thurfjell.  Population-Based Mammography Screening in Clinical Practice , 1994 .

[54]  E. Thurfjell,et al.  Benefit of independent double reading in a population-based mammography screening program. , 1994, Radiology.

[55]  J. Stack,et al.  Screening for breast cancer in Ireland: the Eccles Breast Screening Programme , 1994, European journal of cancer prevention : the official journal of the European Cancer Prevention Organisation.

[56]  D. Trichopoulos,et al.  Breast cancer screening in southern Greece , 1994, European Journal of Cancer Prevention.

[57]  H. Oven,et al.  Breast cancer screening in the Flemish Region, Belgium , 1994, European journal of cancer prevention : the official journal of the European Cancer Prevention Organisation.

[58]  S. Ciatto,et al.  Design and preliminary results of the Florence Breast Cancer Screening Programme (Progetto Firenze Donna) , 1994, European journal of cancer prevention : the official journal of the European Cancer Prevention Organisation.

[59]  J. Bellocq,et al.  Europe against Cancer breast cancer screening programme in France: the ADEMAS programme in Bas‐Rhin , 1994, European journal of cancer prevention : the official journal of the European Cancer Prevention Organisation.

[60]  N. Ascunce,et al.  Early detection programme for breast cancer in Navarra, Spain , 1994, European journal of cancer prevention : the official journal of the European Cancer Prevention Organisation.

[61]  C. de Wolf,et al.  Breast cancer screening in the framework of the Europe against Cancer programme , 1994, European Journal of Cancer Prevention.

[62]  E. Fernandes,et al.  Breast cancer screening in the central region of Portugal , 1994, European journal of cancer prevention : the official journal of the European Cancer Prevention Organisation.

[63]  E. Thurfjell.  Population-based mammography screening in clinical practice. Results from the prevalence round in Uppsala county. , 1994, Acta radiologica.

[64]  K. Kerlikowske,et al.  Positive predictive value of screening mammography by age and family history of breast cancer. , 1993, JAMA.

[65]  Marydale Debor,et al.  Quality determinants of mammography , 1993 .

[66]  W. P. Evans,et al.  The Texas Breast Screening Project: Part I: Mammographic and Clinical Results , 1993, Southern medical journal (Birmingham, Ala. Print).

[67]  C L Robertson,et al.  A private breast imaging practice: medical audit of 25,788 screening and 1,077 diagnostic examinations. , 1993, Radiology.

[68]  Lynde Jl,et al.  Low-cost screening mammography: results of 21,141 consecutive examinations in a community program. , 1993 .

[69]  I. Russell.  A mammographic screening pilot project in Victoria 1988–1990 , 1993, Medical Journal of Australia.

[70]  J. Swets,et al.  Reading and decision aids for improved accuracy and standardization of mammographic diagnosis. , 1992, Radiology.

[71]  R. Rosenberg,et al.  Improvement in mammography interpretation skills in a community radiology practice after dedicated teaching courses: 2-year medical audit of 38,633 cases. , 1992, Radiology.

[72]  J. Elmore,et al.  A bibliography of publications on observer variability (final installment). , 1992, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[73]  O. Linton,et al.  American College of Radiology , 2018, Definitions.

[74]  T. Hislop,et al.  The British Columbia Mammography Screening Program: evaluation of the first 15 months. , 1992, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[75]  B. Trock,et al.  Psychological and behavioral implications of abnormal mammograms. , 1991, Annals of internal medicine.

[76]  J A Swets,et al.  Enhancing and Evaluating Diagnostic Accuracy , 1991, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[77]  M. Rickard,et al.  Breast cancer diagnosis by screening mammography: early results of the Central Sydney Area Health Service Breast X‐ray Programme , 1991, The Medical journal of Australia.

[78]  T. Eberlein,et al.  Biopsy of occult breast lesions. Analysis of 1261 abnormalities. , 1990, JAMA.

[79]  D Hemenway,et al.  Physicians' responses to financial incentives. Evidence from a for-profit ambulatory care center. , 1990, The New England journal of medicine.

[80]  P. Hallgrimsson,et al.  Breast cancer screening in Iceland: preliminary results. , 1990, Recent results in cancer research. Fortschritte der Krebsforschung. Progres dans les recherches sur le cancer.

[81]  A. Hillman,et al.  How do financial incentives affect physicians' clinical decisions and the financial performance of health maintenance organizations? , 1989, The New England journal of medicine.

[82]  R. Bird,et al.  Low-cost screening mammography: report on finances and review of 21,716 consecutive cases. , 1989, Radiology.

[83]  L. Morlock,et al.  Practice Changes in Response to the Malpractice Litigation Climate: Results of a Maryland Physician Survey , 1989, Medical care.

[84]  D. Cyrlak,et al.  Induced costs of low-cost screening mammography. , 1988, Radiology.

[85]  J. Swets,et al.  Enhanced interpretation of diagnostic images. , 1988, Investigative radiology.

[86]  N. Laird,et al.  Meta-analysis in clinical trials. , 1986, Controlled clinical trials.

[87]  A R Feinstein,et al.  A bibliography of publications on observer variability. , 1985, Journal of chronic diseases.

[88]  K. S. Edwards.  Defensive medicine. Health care with a pricetag. , 1985, The Ohio State medical journal.

[89]  S. Zuckerman,et al.  Medical malpractice: claims, legal costs, and the practice of defensive medicine. , 1984, Health affairs.

[90]  Hirsh Hl,et al.  Defensive medicine as a basis for malpractice liability. , 1983 .

[91]  H. Hirsh,et al.  Defensive medicine as a basis for malpractice liability. , 1983, Transactions & studies of the College of Physicians of Philadelphia.

[92]  N. Hershey.  The defensive practice of medicine. Myth or reality. , 1972, The Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly.