Dataset Information

Mammographic interpretive volume and diagnostic mammogram interpretation performance in community practice.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

To investigate the association between radiologist interpretive volume and diagnostic mammography performance in community-based settings.

Materials and methods

This study received institutional review board approval and was HIPAA compliant. A total of 117,136 diagnostic mammograms that were interpreted by 107 radiologists between 2002 and 2006 in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium were included. Logistic regression analysis was used to estimate the adjusted effect on sensitivity and the rates of false-positive findings and cancer detection of four volume measures: annual diagnostic volume, screening volume, total volume, and diagnostic focus (percentage of total volume that is diagnostic). Analyses were stratified by the indication for imaging: additional imaging after screening mammography or evaluation of a breast concern or problem.

Results

Diagnostic volume was associated with sensitivity; the odds of a true-positive finding rose until a diagnostic volume of 1000 mammograms was reached; thereafter, they either leveled off (P < .001 for additional imaging) or decreased (P = .049 for breast concerns or problems) with further volume increases. Diagnostic focus was associated with false-positive rate; the odds of a false-positive finding increased until a diagnostic focus of 20% was reached and decreased thereafter (P < .024 for additional imaging and P < .001 for breast concerns or problems with no self-reported lump). Neither total volume nor screening volume was consistently associated with diagnostic performance.

Conclusion

Interpretive volume and diagnostic performance have complex multifaceted relationships. Our results suggest that diagnostic interpretive volume is a key determinant in the development of thresholds for considering a diagnostic mammogram to be abnormal. Current volume regulations do not distinguish between screening and diagnostic mammography, and doing so would likely be challenging.

SUBMITTER: Haneuse S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3244665 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Mammographic interpretive volume and diagnostic mammogram interpretation performance in community practice.

Haneuse Sebastien S Buist Diana S M DS Miglioretti Diana L DL Anderson Melissa L ML Carney Patricia A PA Onega Tracy T Geller Berta M BM Kerlikowske Karla K Rosenberg Robert D RD Yankaskas Bonnie C BC Elmore Joann G JG Taplin Stephen H SH Smith Robert A RA Sickles Edward A EA

Radiology 20111121 1

<h4>Purpose</h4>To investigate the association between radiologist interpretive volume and diagnostic mammography performance in community-based settings.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>This study received institutional review board approval and was HIPAA compliant. A total of 117,136 diagnostic mammograms that were interpreted by 107 radiologists between 2002 and 2006 in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium were included. Logistic regression analysis was used to estimate the adjusted effect ...[more]

PMID: 22106351

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeTo examine radiologists' screening performance in relation to the number of diagnostic work-ups performed after abnormal findings are discovered at screening mammography by the same radiologist or by different radiologists.Materials and methodsIn an institutional review board-approved HIPAA-compliant study, the authors linked 651 671 screening mammograms interpreted from 2002 to 2006 by 96 radiologists in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium to cancer registries (standard of reference) to evaluate the performance of screening mammography (sensitivity, false-positive rate [ FPR false-positive rate ], and cancer detection rate [ CDR cancer detection rate ]). Logistic regression was used to assess the association between the volume of recalled screening mammograms ("own" mammograms, where the radiologist who interpreted the diagnostic image was the same radiologist who had interpreted the screening image, and "any" mammograms, where the radiologist who interpreted the diagnostic image may or may not have been the radiologist who interpreted the screening image) and screening performance and whether the association between total annual volume and performance differed according to the volume of diagnostic work-up.ResultsAnnually, 38% of radiologists performed the diagnostic work-up for 25 or fewer of their own recalled screening mammograms, 24% performed the work-up for 0-50, and 39% performed the work-up for more than 50. For the work-up of recalled screening mammograms from any radiologist, 24% of radiologists performed the work-up for 0-50 mammograms, 32% performed the work-up for 51-125, and 44% performed the work-up for more than 125. With increasing numbers of radiologist work-ups for their own recalled mammograms, the sensitivity (P = .039), FPR false-positive rate (P = .004), and CDR cancer detection rate (P < .001) of screening mammography increased, yielding a stepped increase in women recalled per cancer detected from 17.4 for 25 or fewer mammograms to 24.6 for more than 50 mammograms. Increases in work-ups for any radiologist yielded significant increases in FPR false-positive rate (P = .011) and CDR cancer detection rate (P = .001) and a nonsignificant increase in sensitivity (P = .15). Radiologists with a lower annual volume of any work-ups had consistently lower FPR false-positive rate , sensitivity, and CDR cancer detection rate at all annual interpretive volumes.ConclusionThese findings support the hypothesis that radiologists may improve their screening performance by performing the diagnostic work-up for their own recalled screening mammograms and directly receiving feedback afforded by means of the outcomes associated with their initial decision to recall. Arranging for radiologists to work up a minimum number of their own recalled cases could improve screening performance but would need systems to facilitate this workflow.

Project description:To develop criteria to identify thresholds for the minimally acceptable performance of physicians interpreting diagnostic mammography studies.In an institutional review board-approved HIPAA-compliant study, an Angoff approach was used to set criteria for identifying minimally acceptable interpretive performance for both workup after abnormal screening examinations and workup of a breast lump. Normative data from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) was used to help the expert radiologist identify the impact of cut points. Simulations, also using data from the BCSC, were used to estimate the expected clinical impact from the recommended performance thresholds.Final cut points for workup of abnormal screening examinations were as follows: sensitivity, less than 80%; specificity, less than 80% or greater than 95%; abnormal interpretation rate, less than 8% or greater than 25%; positive predictive value (PPV) of biopsy recommendation (PPV2), less than 15% or greater than 40%; PPV of biopsy performed (PPV3), less than 20% or greater than 45%; and cancer diagnosis rate, less than 20 per 1000 interpretations. Final cut points for workup of a breast lump were as follows: sensitivity, less than 85%; specificity, less than 83% or greater than 95%; abnormal interpretation rate, less than 10% or greater than 25%; PPV2, less than 25% or greater than 50%; PPV3, less than 30% or greater than 55%; and cancer diagnosis rate, less than 40 per 1000 interpretations. If underperforming physicians moved into the acceptable range after remedial training, the expected result would be (a) diagnosis of an additional 86 cancers per 100,000 women undergoing workup after screening examinations, with a reduction in the number of false-positive examinations by 1067 per 100,000 women undergoing this workup, and (b) diagnosis of an additional 335 cancers per 100,000 women undergoing workup of a breast lump, with a reduction in the number of false-positive examinations by 634 per 100,000 women undergoing this workup.Interpreting physicians who fall outside one or more of the identified cut points should be reviewed in the context of an overall assessment of all their performance measures and their specific practice setting to determine if remedial training is indicated.

Project description:BackgroundAbbreviated breast MRI (abMRI) is being introduced in breast screening trials and clinical practice, particularly for women with dense breasts. Upscaling abMRI provision requires the workforce of mammogram readers to learn to effectively interpret abMRI. The purpose of this study was to examine the diagnostic accuracy of mammogram readers to interpret abMRI after a single day of standardised small-group training and to compare diagnostic performance of mammogram readers experienced in full-protocol breast MRI (fpMRI) interpretation (Group 1) with that of those without fpMRI interpretation experience (Group 2).MethodsMammogram readers were recruited from six NHS Breast Screening Programme sites. Small-group hands-on workstation training was provided, with subsequent prospective, independent, blinded interpretation of an enriched dataset with known outcome. A simplified form of abMRI (first post-contrast subtracted images (FAST MRI), displayed as maximum-intensity projection (MIP) and subtracted slice stack) was used. Per-breast and per-lesion diagnostic accuracy analysis was undertaken, with comparison across groups, and double-reading simulation of a consecutive screening subset.Results37 readers (Group 1: 17, Group 2: 20) completed the reading task of 125 scans (250 breasts) (total = 9250 reads). Overall sensitivity was 86% (95% confidence interval (CI) 84-87%; 1776/2072) and specificity 86% (95%CI 85-86%; 6140/7178). Group 1 showed significantly higher sensitivity (843/952; 89%; 95%CI 86-91%) and higher specificity (2957/3298; 90%; 95%CI 89-91%) than Group 2 (sensitivity = 83%; 95%CI 81-85% (933/1120) p < 0.0001; specificity = 82%; 95%CI 81-83% (3183/3880) p < 0.0001). Inter-reader agreement was higher for Group 1 (kappa = 0.73; 95%CI 0.68-0.79) than for Group 2 (kappa = 0.51; 95%CI 0.45-0.56). Specificity improved for Group 2, from the first 55 cases (81%) to the remaining 70 (83%) (p = 0.02) but not for Group 1 (90-89% p = 0.44), whereas sensitivity remained consistent for both Group 1 (88-89%) and Group 2 (83-84%).ConclusionsSingle-day abMRI interpretation training for mammogram readers achieved an overall diagnostic performance within benchmarks published for fpMRI but was insufficient for diagnostic accuracy of mammogram readers new to breast MRI to match that of experienced fpMRI readers. Novice MRI reader performance improved during the reading task, suggesting that additional training could further narrow this performance gap.

Project description:To examine whether U.S. radiologists' interpretive volume affects their screening mammography performance.Annual interpretive volume measures (total, screening, diagnostic, and screening focus [ratio of screening to diagnostic mammograms]) were collected for 120 radiologists in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) who interpreted 783?965 screening mammograms from 2002 to 2006. Volume measures in 1 year were examined by using multivariate logistic regression relative to screening sensitivity, false-positive rates, and cancer detection rate the next year. BCSC registries and the Statistical Coordinating Center received institutional review board approval for active or passive consenting processes and a Federal Certificate of Confidentiality and other protections for participating women, physicians, and facilities. All procedures were compliant with the terms of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.Mean sensitivity was 85.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 83.7%, 86.6%) and was significantly lower for radiologists with a greater screening focus (P = .023) but did not significantly differ by total (P = .47), screening (P = .33), or diagnostic (P = .23) volume. The mean false-positive rate was 9.1% (95% CI: 8.1%, 10.1%), with rates significantly higher for radiologists who had the lowest total (P = .008) and screening (P = .015) volumes. Radiologists with low diagnostic volume (P = .004 and P = .008) and a greater screening focus (P = .003 and P = .002) had significantly lower false-positive and cancer detection rates, respectively. Median invasive tumor size and proportion of cancers detected at early stages did not vary by volume.Increasing minimum interpretive volume requirements in the United States while adding a minimal requirement for diagnostic interpretation could reduce the number of false-positive work-ups without hindering cancer detection. These results provide detailed associations between mammography volumes and performance for policymakers to consider along with workforce, practice organization, and access issues and radiologist experience when reevaluating requirements.

Project description:Purpose To evaluate the effect of background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) on breast magnetic resonance (MR) imaging interpretive performance in a large multi-institutional cohort with independent analysis of screening and diagnostic MR studies. Materials and Methods Analysis of 3770 breast MR studies was conducted. Examinations were performed in 2958 women at six participating facilities in the San Francisco Bay Area from January 2010 to October 2012. Findings were recorded prospectively in the San Francisco Mammography Registry. Performance measures were compared between studies with low BPE (mild or minimal) and those with high BPE (moderate or marked) by using binomial tests of proportions. Results Of 1726 MR imaging studies in the screening group, 1301 were classified as having low BPE and 425 were classified as having high BPE (75% vs 25%, respectively; P < .001). Of 2044 MR imaging studies in the diagnostic group, 1443 were classified as having low BPE and 601 were classified as having high BPE (71% vs 29%, respectively; P < .001). For low versus high BPE groups at screening, abnormal interpretation rate was 157 of 1301 versus 111 of 424 (12% vs 26%, P < .001); biopsy recommendation rate was 85 of 1301 versus 54 of 424 (7% vs 13%, P < .001); and specificity was 89% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 87, 91) versus 75% (95% CI: 71, 80) (P = .01). For the low versus high BPE groups at diagnostic MR imaging, biopsy recommendation rate was 325 of 1443 versus 195 of 601 (23% vs 32%, P < .001); and specificity was 86% (95% CI: 84, 88) versus 75% (95% CI: 74, 82) (P < .001). There were no significant differences between studies with low versus high BPE in sensitivity for screening (76% [95% CI: 55, 91] vs 83% [95% CI: 52, 98]; P = .94) or diagnostic (93% [95% CI: 87, 97] vs 96% [95% CI: 87, 99]; P = .69) MR imaging, nor were there significant differences in cancer detection rate per 1000 patients between the low BPE versus high BPE groups for screening (15 per 1000 vs 24 per 1000, P = .30) or diagnostic (78 per 1000 vs 85 per 1000, P = .64) MR imaging. Conclusion Relative to MR studies with minimal or mild BPE, those with moderate or marked BPE were associated with higher abnormal interpretation and biopsy rates and lower specificity, with no difference in cancer detection rate. © RSNA, 2017 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Dataset Information

Mammographic interpretive volume and diagnostic mammogram interpretation performance in community practice.

Purpose

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Mammographic interpretive volume and diagnostic mammogram interpretation performance in community practice.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets