Document Detail

Performance benchmarks for screening mammography.
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  16990671     Owner:  NLM     Status:  MEDLINE    
PURPOSE: To retrospectively evaluate the range of performance outcomes of the radiologist in an audit of screening mammography by using a representative sample of U.S. radiologists to allow development of performance benchmarks for screening mammography.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval was obtained, and study was HIPAA compliant. Informed consent was or was not obtained according to institutional review board guidelines. Data from 188 mammographic facilities and 807 radiologists obtained between 1996 and 2002 were analyzed from six registries from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC). Contributed data included demographic information, clinical findings, mammographic interpretation, and biopsy results. Measurements calculated were positive predictive values (PPVs) from screening mammography (PPV(1)), biopsy recommendation (PPV(2)), biopsy performed (PPV(3)), recall rate, cancer detection rate, mean cancer size, and cancer stage. Radiologist performance data are presented as 50th (median), 10th, 25th, 75th, and 90th percentiles and as graphic presentations by using smoothed curves.
RESULTS: There were 2 580 151 screening mammographic studies from 1 117 390 women (age range, <30 to >/=80 years). The respective means and ranges of performance outcomes for the middle 50% of radiologists were as follows: recall rate, 9.8% and 6.4%-13.3%; PPV(1), 4.8% and 3.4%-6.2%; and PPV(2), 24.6% and 18.8%-32.0%. Mean cancer detection rate was 4.7 per 1000, and the median [corrected] mean size of invasive cancers was 13 mm. The range of performance outcomes for the middle 80% of radiologists also was presented.
CONCLUSION: Community screening mammographic performance measurements of cancer outcomes for the majority of radiologists in the BCSC surpass performance recommendations. Recall rate for almost half of radiologists, however, is higher than the recommended rate.
Robert D Rosenberg; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Linn A Abraham; Edward A Sickles; Constance D Lehman; Berta M Geller; Patricia A Carney; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana S M Buist; Donald L Weaver; William E Barlow; Rachel Ballard-Barbash
Publication Detail:
Type:  Journal Article; Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural    
Journal Detail:
Title:  Radiology     Volume:  241     ISSN:  0033-8419     ISO Abbreviation:  Radiology     Publication Date:  2006 Oct 
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2006-09-22     Completed Date:  2006-10-13     Revised Date:  2014-05-30    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  0401260     Medline TA:  Radiology     Country:  United States    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  55-66     Citation Subset:  AIM; IM    
Copyright Information:
(c) RSNA, 2006.
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Aged, 80 and over
Breast Neoplasms / radiography
Mammography / standards*
Middle Aged
Retrospective Studies
Grant Support
U01 CA086082/CA/NCI NIH HHS; U0169976//PHS HHS; U01CA63731/CA/NCI NIH HHS; U01CA63740/CA/NCI NIH HHS; U01CA70013/CA/NCI NIH HHS; U01CA70040/CA/NCI NIH HHS; U01CA86076/CA/NCI NIH HHS; U01CA86082-01/CA/NCI NIH HHS
Erratum In:
Radiology. 2014 May;271(2):620

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine

Previous Document:  Single reading with computer-aided detection and double reading of screening mammograms in the Unite...
Next Document:  Improving the concordance of mammography assessment and management recommendations.