Dataset Information

Effect of radiologists' diagnostic work-up volume on interpretive performance.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

To 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 methods

In 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.

Results

Annually, 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.

Conclusion

These 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.

SUBMITTER: Buist DS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4334307 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effect of radiologists' diagnostic work-up volume on interpretive performance.

Buist Diana S M DS Anderson Melissa L ML Smith Robert A RA Carney Patricia A PA Miglioretti Diana L DL Monsees Barbara S BS Sickles Edward A EA Taplin Stephen H SH Geller Berta M BM Yankaskas Bonnie C BC Onega Tracy L TL

Radiology 20140624 2

<h4>Purpose</h4>To 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.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>In 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 (st ...[more]

PMID: 24960110

Similar Datasets

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: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:Our aim was to assess the validity of the ICD-10 code for splenomegaly in the Danish National Registry of Patients (DNRP), as well as to investigate which underlying diseases explained the observed splenomegaly.Splenomegaly is a common finding in patients referred to an internal medical department and can be caused by a large spectrum of diseases, including haematological diseases and liver cirrhosis. However, some patients remain without a causal diagnosis, despite extensive medical work-up.We identified 129 patients through the DNRP, that had been given the ICD-10 splenomegaly diagnosis code in 1994-2013 at Odense University Hospital, Denmark, excluding patients with prior splenomegaly, malignant haematological neoplasia or liver cirrhosis. Medical records were reviewed for validity of the splenomegaly diagnosis, diagnostic work-up, and the underlying disease was determined. The positive predictive value (PPV) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for the splenomegaly diagnosis code. Patients with idiopathic splenomegaly in on-going follow-up were also invited to be investigated for Gaucher disease.The overall PPV was 92% (95% CI: 85, 96). Haematological diseases were the underlying causal diagnosis in 39%; hepatic diseases in 18%, infectious disease in 10% and other diseases in 8%. 25% of patients with splenomegaly remained without a causal diagnosis. Lymphoma was the most common haematological causal diagnosis and liver cirrhosis the most common hepatic causal diagnosis. None of the investigated patients with idiopathic splenomegaly had Gaucher disease.Our findings show that the splenomegaly diagnosis in the DNRP is valid and can be used in registry-based studies. However, because of suspected significant under-coding, it should be considered if supplementary data sources should be used in addition, in order to attain a more representative population. Haematological diseases were the most common cause, however in a large fraction of patients no causal diagnosis was found.

Dataset Information

Effect of radiologists' diagnostic work-up volume on interpretive performance.

Purpose

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Effect of radiologists' diagnostic work-up volume on interpretive performance.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets