Organized breast screening programs in Canada: effect of radiologist reading volumes on outcomes.

PURPOSE To examine retrospectively the relationship between radiologist screening program reading volumes and interpretation results. MATERIALS AND METHODS This research project was reviewed by the University of British Columbia Research Ethics Board. Informed patient consent was not required. Data were requested from Canadian provincial screening programs for the period 1988-2000. Cancer detection rates, abnormal interpretation rates, and positive predictive values (PPVs) were calculated for individual radiologists in those programs. Multivariate Poisson mixed regression models were used to examine the effect of patient age, screening examination sequence (first or subsequent screening examination), province, radiologist reading volume, and interradiologist differences on cancer detection rate, abnormal interpretation rate, and PPV. RESULTS The results of the interpretation of 1406678 screening mammograms by 304 radiologists from seven provincial programs were analyzed. Cancer detection rate, abnormal interpretation rate, and PPV all varied according to age of woman screened and screening sequence and across the sample of radiologists. None of the rates varied by province. Neither the cancer detection rate nor the abnormal interpretation rate varied by reading volume, but the average PPV was increased by 34% for volumes over 2000 mammograms versus volumes of 480-699 mammograms per year. There was no evidence that the magnitude of variability around the average, for radiologists reading the same volume of mammograms, varied across different volume groups for any of the outcome measures. CONCLUSION Cancer detection did not vary with reading volume. The average PPV for individual radiologists increased as reading volume rose up to 2000 mammograms per year; it stabilized at higher volumes.

[1]  C. D'Orsi,et al.  International variation in screening mammography interpretations in community-based programs. , 2003, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

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

[3]  Mireille J. M. Broeders,et al.  Breast cancer screening programmes in 22 countries: current policies, administration and guidelines , 1998 .

[4]  A R Feinstein,et al.  Context bias. A problem in diagnostic radiology. , 1996, JAMA.

[5]  S. Edge,et al.  Provider case volume and outcome in the evaluation and treatment of patients with mammogram‐detected breast carcinoma , 2002, Cancer.

[6]  C. Rutter,et al.  Assessing mammographers' accuracy. A comparison of clinical and test performance. , 2000, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[7]  Peter Congdon Bayesian statistical modelling , 2002 .

[8]  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.

[9]  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.

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

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

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

[13]  E. Conant,et al.  How experience and training influence mammography expertise. , 1999, Academic radiology.

[14]  I. Olivotto,et al.  Performance of screening mammography in organized programs in Canada in 1996. The Database Management Subcommittee to the National Committee for the Canadian Breast Cancer Screening Initiative. , 2000, CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne.

[15]  A. Gelfand,et al.  Predicting the cumulative risk of false-positive mammograms. , 2000, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[16]  C. Nodine,et al.  Nature of expertise in searching mammograms for breast masses , 1996, Medical Imaging.