Performance benchmarks for diagnostic mammography.

PURPOSE To evaluate a range of performance parameters pertinent to the comprehensive auditing of diagnostic mammography examinations, and to derive performance benchmarks therefrom, by pooling data collected from large numbers of patients and radiologists that are likely to be representative of mammography practice in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS Institutional review board approval was met, informed consent was not required, and this study was Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliant. Six mammography registries contributed data to the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC), providing patient demographic and clinical information, mammogram interpretation data, and biopsy results from defined population-based catchment areas. The study involved 151 mammography facilities and 646 interpreting radiologists. The study population included women 18 years of age or older who underwent at least one diagnostic mammography examination between 1996 and 2001. Collected data were used to derive mean performance parameter values, including abnormal interpretation rate, positive predictive value (for abnormal interpretation, biopsy recommended, and biopsy performed), cancer diagnosis rate, invasive cancer size, and the percentages of minimal cancers, axillary node-negative invasive cancers, and stage 0 and I cancers. Additional benchmarks were derived for these performance parameters, including 10th, 25th, 50th (median), 75th, and 90th percentile values. RESULTS The study involved 332,926 diagnostic mammography examinations. Mean performance parameter values were abnormal interpretation rate, 8.0%; positive predictive value for abnormal interpretation, 31.4%; positive predictive value for biopsy recommended, 31.5%; positive predictive value for biopsy performed, 39.5%; cancer diagnosis rate, 25.3 per 1000 examinations; invasive cancer size, 20.2 mm; percentage of minimal cancers, 42.0%; percentage of axillary node-negative invasive cancers, 73.6%; and percentage of stage 0 and I cancers, 62.4%. CONCLUSION The presented BCSC outcomes data and performance benchmarks may be used by mammography facilities and individual radiologists to evaluate their own performance for diagnostic mammography as determined by means of periodic comprehensive audits.

[1]  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.

[2]  E. Conant,et al.  Factors affecting radiologist inconsistency in screening mammography. , 2002, Academic radiology.

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

[4]  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.

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

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

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

[8]  Comparison of woman-specific versus breast-specific data for reporting screening mammography performance. , 2000, Academic radiology.

[9]  D. Salas,et al.  Short-term follow-up results in 795 nonpalpable probably benign lesions detected at screening mammography. , 2001, Radiology.

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

[11]  Generalists versus Specialists in Mammography [letter] , 2003 .

[12]  D. Kopans.  The positive predictive value of mammography. , 1992, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

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

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

[15]  E. Burnside,et al.  Interpreting data from audits when screening and diagnostic mammography outcomes are combined. , 2002, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[16]  D. Wolverton,et al.  Performance parameters for screening and diagnostic mammography: specialist and general radiologists. , 2002, Radiology.

[17]  L. Liberman,et al.  Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS). , 2002, Radiologic clinics of North America.

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

[19]  W. Barlow,et al.  Current medicolegal and confidentiality issues in large, multicenter research programs. , 2000, American journal of epidemiology.

[20]  K. Kerlikowske,et al.  Effect of age, breast density, and family history on the sensitivity of first screening mammography. , 1996, JAMA.

[21]  C A Kelsey,et al.  Effects of age, breast density, ethnicity, and estrogen replacement therapy on screening mammographic sensitivity and cancer stage at diagnosis: review of 183,134 screening mammograms in Albuquerque, New Mexico. , 1998, Radiology.

[22]  W A Murphy,et al.  Professional quality assurance for mammography screening programs. , 1990, Radiology.

[23]  X. Varas,et al.  Revisiting the mammographic follow-up of BI-RADS category 3 lesions. , 2002, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

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

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

[26]  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.

[27]  E. Sickles.  Periodic mammographic follow-up of probably benign lesions: results in 3,184 consecutive cases. , 1991, Radiology.

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

[29]  B. Monsees,et al.  The Mammography Quality Standards Act. An overview of the regulations and guidance. , 2000, Radiologic clinics of North America.

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

[31]  B. Yankaskas,et al.  Use of the American College of Radiology BI-RADS to report on the mammographic evaluation of women with signs and symptoms of breast disease. , 2002, Radiology.