Performance parameters for screening and diagnostic mammography: specialist and general radiologists.

PURPOSE To evaluate performance parameters for radiologists in a practice of breast imaging specialists and general diagnostic radiologists who interpret a large series of consecutive screening and diagnostic mammographic studies. MATERIALS AND METHODS Data (ie, patient age; family history of breast cancer; availability of previous mammograms for comparison; and abnormal interpretation, cancer detection, and stage 0-I cancer detection rates) were derived from review of mammographic studies obtained from January 1997 through August 2001. The breast imaging specialists have substantially more initial training in mammography and at least six times more continuing education in mammography, and they interpret 10 times more mammographic studies per year than the general radiologists. Differences between specialist and general radiologist performances at both screening and diagnostic examinations were assessed for significance by using Student t and chi(2) tests. RESULTS The study involved 47,798 screening and 13,286 diagnostic mammographic examinations. Abnormal interpretation rates for screening mammography (ie, recall rate) were 4.9% for specialists and 7.1% for generalists (P <.001); and for diagnostic mammography (ie, recommended biopsy rate), 15.8% and 9.9%, respectively (P <.001). Cancer detection rates at screening mammography were 6.0 cancer cases per 1,000 examinations for specialists and 3.4 per 1,000 for generalists (P =.007); and at diagnostic mammography, 59.0 per 1,000 and 36.6 per 1,000, respectively (P <.001). Stage 0-I cancer detection rates at screening mammography were 5.3 cancer cases per 1,000 examinations for specialists and 3.0 per 1,000 for generalists (P =.012); and at diagnostic mammography, 43.9 per 1,000 and 27.0 per 1,000, respectively (P <.001). CONCLUSION Specialist radiologists detect more cancers and more early-stage cancers, recommend more biopsies, and have lower recall rates than general radiologists.

[1]  E A Sickles,et al.  The comparative value of mammographic screening for women 40-49 years old versus women 50-64 years old. , 1995, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[2]  E A Sickles,et al.  Medical audit of a rapid-throughput mammography screening practice: methodology and results of 27,114 examinations. , 1990, Radiology.

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

[4]  E. Sickles,et al.  Medical audit of diagnostic mammography examinations: comparison with screening outcomes obtained concurrently. , 2001, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[5]  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.

[6]  V. Moravan,et al.  Results from the Ontario breast screening program, 1990–1995 , 1998, Journal of medical screening.

[7]  C. Boggis,et al.  The influence of previous films on screening mammographic interpretation and detection of breast carcinoma. , 1997, Clinical radiology.

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

[9]  E A Sickles,et al.  Initial versus subsequent screening mammography: comparison of findings and their prognostic significance. , 1995, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[10]  J. Otten,et al.  Long term breast cancer screening in Nijmegen, The Netherlands: the nine rounds from 1975-92. , 1996, Journal of epidemiology and community health.

[11]  E A Sickles,et al.  Quality assurance. How to audit your own mammography practice. , 1992, Radiologic clinics of North America.

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

[13]  C. Beam,et al.  Effect of human variability on independent double reading in screening mammography. , 1996, Academic radiology.

[14]  H. D. de Koning,et al.  Nation‐wide breast cancer screening in The Netherlands: Results of initial and subsequent screening 1990–1995 , 1998, International journal of cancer.

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

[16]  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.

[17]  I. Suramo,et al.  Mammography screening--reasons for recall and the influence of experience on recall in the Finnish system. , 1990, Clinical radiology.

[18]  E A Sickles,et al.  Standardized abnormal interpretation and cancer detection ratios to assess reading volume and reader performance in a breast screening program. , 2000, Radiology.

[19]  E A Sickles.  The usefulness of computers in managing the operation of a mammography screening practice. , 1990, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[20]  L. Tabár,et al.  Update of the Swedish two-county program of mammographic screening for breast cancer. , 1992, Radiologic clinics of North America.