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

Diana S M Buist, Melissa L. Anderson, Robert A. Smith, Patricia (Patty) Carney, Diana L. Miglioretti, Barbara S. Monsees, Edward A. Sickles, Stephen H. Taplin, Berta M. Geller, Bonnie C. Yankaskas, Tracy L. Onega

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

16 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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], and cancer detection rate [CDR]). 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 workups for their own recalled mammograms, the sensitivity (P = .039), FPR (P = .004), and CDR (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 (P = .011) and CDR (P = .001) and a nonsignificant increase in sensitivity (P = .15). Radiologists with a lower annual volume of any work-ups had consistently lower FPR, sensitivity, and CDR at all annual interpretive volumes.

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.

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)351-364
Number of pages14
JournalRadiology
Volume273
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 2014

Fingerprint

Mammography
Neoplasms
Radiologists
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
Workflow
Research Ethics Committees
Registries
Logistic Models
Breast Neoplasms

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Buist, D. S. M., Anderson, M. L., Smith, R. A., Carney, P. P., Miglioretti, D. L., Monsees, B. S., ... Onega, T. L. (2014). Effect of radiologists' diagnostic work-up volume on interpretive performance. Radiology, 273(2), 351-364. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.14132806

Effect of radiologists' diagnostic work-up volume on interpretive performance. / Buist, Diana S M; Anderson, Melissa L.; Smith, Robert A.; Carney, Patricia (Patty); Miglioretti, Diana L.; Monsees, Barbara S.; Sickles, Edward A.; Taplin, Stephen H.; Geller, Berta M.; Yankaskas, Bonnie C.; Onega, Tracy L.

In: Radiology, Vol. 273, No. 2, 01.11.2014, p. 351-364.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Buist, DSM, Anderson, ML, Smith, RA, Carney, PP, Miglioretti, DL, Monsees, BS, Sickles, EA, Taplin, SH, Geller, BM, Yankaskas, BC & Onega, TL 2014, 'Effect of radiologists' diagnostic work-up volume on interpretive performance', Radiology, vol. 273, no. 2, pp. 351-364. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.14132806
Buist DSM, Anderson ML, Smith RA, Carney PP, Miglioretti DL, Monsees BS et al. Effect of radiologists' diagnostic work-up volume on interpretive performance. Radiology. 2014 Nov 1;273(2):351-364. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.14132806
Buist, Diana S M ; Anderson, Melissa L. ; Smith, Robert A. ; Carney, Patricia (Patty) ; Miglioretti, Diana L. ; Monsees, Barbara S. ; Sickles, Edward A. ; Taplin, Stephen H. ; Geller, Berta M. ; Yankaskas, Bonnie C. ; Onega, Tracy L. / Effect of radiologists' diagnostic work-up volume on interpretive performance. In: Radiology. 2014 ; Vol. 273, No. 2. pp. 351-364.
@article{2963f8fbcbdb4bf79a589d4cbcfe4873,
title = "Effect of radiologists' diagnostic work-up volume on interpretive performance",
abstract = "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], and cancer detection rate [CDR]). 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 workups for their own recalled mammograms, the sensitivity (P = .039), FPR (P = .004), and CDR (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 (P = .011) and CDR (P = .001) and a nonsignificant increase in sensitivity (P = .15). Radiologists with a lower annual volume of any work-ups had consistently lower FPR, sensitivity, and CDR at all annual interpretive volumes.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.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.",
author = "Buist, {Diana S M} and Anderson, {Melissa L.} and Smith, {Robert A.} and Carney, {Patricia (Patty)} and Miglioretti, {Diana L.} and Monsees, {Barbara S.} and Sickles, {Edward A.} and Taplin, {Stephen H.} and Geller, {Berta M.} and Yankaskas, {Bonnie C.} and Onega, {Tracy L.}",
year = "2014",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1148/radiol.14132806",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "273",
pages = "351--364",
journal = "Radiology",
issn = "0033-8419",
publisher = "Radiological Society of North America Inc.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Effect of radiologists' diagnostic work-up volume on interpretive performance

AU - Buist, Diana S M

AU - Anderson, Melissa L.

AU - Smith, Robert A.

AU - Carney, Patricia (Patty)

AU - Miglioretti, Diana L.

AU - Monsees, Barbara S.

AU - Sickles, Edward A.

AU - Taplin, Stephen H.

AU - Geller, Berta M.

AU - Yankaskas, Bonnie C.

AU - Onega, Tracy L.

PY - 2014/11/1

Y1 - 2014/11/1

N2 - 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], and cancer detection rate [CDR]). 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 workups for their own recalled mammograms, the sensitivity (P = .039), FPR (P = .004), and CDR (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 (P = .011) and CDR (P = .001) and a nonsignificant increase in sensitivity (P = .15). Radiologists with a lower annual volume of any work-ups had consistently lower FPR, sensitivity, and CDR at all annual interpretive volumes.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.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.

AB - 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], and cancer detection rate [CDR]). 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 workups for their own recalled mammograms, the sensitivity (P = .039), FPR (P = .004), and CDR (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 (P = .011) and CDR (P = .001) and a nonsignificant increase in sensitivity (P = .15). Radiologists with a lower annual volume of any work-ups had consistently lower FPR, sensitivity, and CDR at all annual interpretive volumes.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.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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84910093112&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84910093112&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1148/radiol.14132806

DO - 10.1148/radiol.14132806

M3 - Article

C2 - 24960110

AN - SCOPUS:84910093112

VL - 273

SP - 351

EP - 364

JO - Radiology

JF - Radiology

SN - 0033-8419

IS - 2

ER -