Patient and radiologist characteristics associated with accuracy of two types of diagnostic mammograms

Sara L. Jackson, Linn Abraham, Diana L. Miglioretti, Diana S M Buist, Karla Kerlikowske, Tracy Onega, Patricia (Patty) Carney, Edward A. Sickles, Joann G. Elmore

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

OBJECTIVE. Earlier studies of diagnostic mammography found wide unexplained variability in accuracy among radiologists. We assessed patient and radiologist characteristics associated with the interpretive performance of two types of diagnostic mammography. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Radiologists interpreting mammograms in seven regions of the United States were invited to participate in a survey that collected information on their demographics, practice setting, breast imaging experience, and self-reported interpretive volume. Survey data from 244 radiologists were linked to data on 274,401 diagnostic mammograms performed for additional evaluation of a recent abnormal screening mammogram or to evaluate a breast problem, between 1998 and 2008. These data were also linked to patients' risk factors and follow-up data on breast cancer. We measured interpretive performance by false-positive rate, sensitivity, and AUC. Using logistic regression, we evaluated patient and radiologist characteristics associated with false-positive rate and sensitivity for each diagnostic mammogram type. RESULTS. Mammograms performed for additional evaluation of a recent mammogram had an overall false-positive rate of 11.9%, sensitivity of 90.2%, and AUC of 0.894; examinations done to evaluate a breast problem had an overall false-positive rate of 7.6%, sensitivity of 83.9%, and AUC of 0.871. Multiple patient characteristics were associated with measures of interpretive performance, and radiologist academic affiliation was associated with higher sensitivity for both indications for diagnostic mammograms. CONCLUSION. These results indicate the potential for improved radiologist training, using evaluation of their own performance relative to best practices, and for improved clinical outcomes with health care system changes to maximize access to diagnostic mammography interpretation in academic settings.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)456-463
Number of pages8
JournalAmerican Journal of Roentgenology
Volume205
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 1 2015

Fingerprint

Mammography
Area Under Curve
Breast
Radiologists
Practice Guidelines
Logistic Models
Demography
Breast Neoplasms
Delivery of Health Care
Surveys and Questionnaires

Keywords

  • Accuracy
  • Characteristics
  • Diagnostic mammography
  • Patient
  • Radiologist

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Jackson, S. L., Abraham, L., Miglioretti, D. L., Buist, D. S. M., Kerlikowske, K., Onega, T., ... Elmore, J. G. (2015). Patient and radiologist characteristics associated with accuracy of two types of diagnostic mammograms. American Journal of Roentgenology, 205(2), 456-463. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.14.13672

Patient and radiologist characteristics associated with accuracy of two types of diagnostic mammograms. / Jackson, Sara L.; Abraham, Linn; Miglioretti, Diana L.; Buist, Diana S M; Kerlikowske, Karla; Onega, Tracy; Carney, Patricia (Patty); Sickles, Edward A.; Elmore, Joann G.

In: American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol. 205, No. 2, 01.08.2015, p. 456-463.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Jackson, SL, Abraham, L, Miglioretti, DL, Buist, DSM, Kerlikowske, K, Onega, T, Carney, PP, Sickles, EA & Elmore, JG 2015, 'Patient and radiologist characteristics associated with accuracy of two types of diagnostic mammograms', American Journal of Roentgenology, vol. 205, no. 2, pp. 456-463. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.14.13672
Jackson, Sara L. ; Abraham, Linn ; Miglioretti, Diana L. ; Buist, Diana S M ; Kerlikowske, Karla ; Onega, Tracy ; Carney, Patricia (Patty) ; Sickles, Edward A. ; Elmore, Joann G. / Patient and radiologist characteristics associated with accuracy of two types of diagnostic mammograms. In: American Journal of Roentgenology. 2015 ; Vol. 205, No. 2. pp. 456-463.
@article{2826b83416f847b5b921f26677e64aac,
title = "Patient and radiologist characteristics associated with accuracy of two types of diagnostic mammograms",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE. Earlier studies of diagnostic mammography found wide unexplained variability in accuracy among radiologists. We assessed patient and radiologist characteristics associated with the interpretive performance of two types of diagnostic mammography. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Radiologists interpreting mammograms in seven regions of the United States were invited to participate in a survey that collected information on their demographics, practice setting, breast imaging experience, and self-reported interpretive volume. Survey data from 244 radiologists were linked to data on 274,401 diagnostic mammograms performed for additional evaluation of a recent abnormal screening mammogram or to evaluate a breast problem, between 1998 and 2008. These data were also linked to patients' risk factors and follow-up data on breast cancer. We measured interpretive performance by false-positive rate, sensitivity, and AUC. Using logistic regression, we evaluated patient and radiologist characteristics associated with false-positive rate and sensitivity for each diagnostic mammogram type. RESULTS. Mammograms performed for additional evaluation of a recent mammogram had an overall false-positive rate of 11.9{\%}, sensitivity of 90.2{\%}, and AUC of 0.894; examinations done to evaluate a breast problem had an overall false-positive rate of 7.6{\%}, sensitivity of 83.9{\%}, and AUC of 0.871. Multiple patient characteristics were associated with measures of interpretive performance, and radiologist academic affiliation was associated with higher sensitivity for both indications for diagnostic mammograms. CONCLUSION. These results indicate the potential for improved radiologist training, using evaluation of their own performance relative to best practices, and for improved clinical outcomes with health care system changes to maximize access to diagnostic mammography interpretation in academic settings.",
keywords = "Accuracy, Characteristics, Diagnostic mammography, Patient, Radiologist",
author = "Jackson, {Sara L.} and Linn Abraham and Miglioretti, {Diana L.} and Buist, {Diana S M} and Karla Kerlikowske and Tracy Onega and Carney, {Patricia (Patty)} and Sickles, {Edward A.} and Elmore, {Joann G.}",
year = "2015",
month = "8",
day = "1",
doi = "10.2214/AJR.14.13672",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "205",
pages = "456--463",
journal = "AJR. American journal of roentgenology",
issn = "0361-803X",
publisher = "American Roentgen Ray Society",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Patient and radiologist characteristics associated with accuracy of two types of diagnostic mammograms

AU - Jackson, Sara L.

AU - Abraham, Linn

AU - Miglioretti, Diana L.

AU - Buist, Diana S M

AU - Kerlikowske, Karla

AU - Onega, Tracy

AU - Carney, Patricia (Patty)

AU - Sickles, Edward A.

AU - Elmore, Joann G.

PY - 2015/8/1

Y1 - 2015/8/1

N2 - OBJECTIVE. Earlier studies of diagnostic mammography found wide unexplained variability in accuracy among radiologists. We assessed patient and radiologist characteristics associated with the interpretive performance of two types of diagnostic mammography. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Radiologists interpreting mammograms in seven regions of the United States were invited to participate in a survey that collected information on their demographics, practice setting, breast imaging experience, and self-reported interpretive volume. Survey data from 244 radiologists were linked to data on 274,401 diagnostic mammograms performed for additional evaluation of a recent abnormal screening mammogram or to evaluate a breast problem, between 1998 and 2008. These data were also linked to patients' risk factors and follow-up data on breast cancer. We measured interpretive performance by false-positive rate, sensitivity, and AUC. Using logistic regression, we evaluated patient and radiologist characteristics associated with false-positive rate and sensitivity for each diagnostic mammogram type. RESULTS. Mammograms performed for additional evaluation of a recent mammogram had an overall false-positive rate of 11.9%, sensitivity of 90.2%, and AUC of 0.894; examinations done to evaluate a breast problem had an overall false-positive rate of 7.6%, sensitivity of 83.9%, and AUC of 0.871. Multiple patient characteristics were associated with measures of interpretive performance, and radiologist academic affiliation was associated with higher sensitivity for both indications for diagnostic mammograms. CONCLUSION. These results indicate the potential for improved radiologist training, using evaluation of their own performance relative to best practices, and for improved clinical outcomes with health care system changes to maximize access to diagnostic mammography interpretation in academic settings.

AB - OBJECTIVE. Earlier studies of diagnostic mammography found wide unexplained variability in accuracy among radiologists. We assessed patient and radiologist characteristics associated with the interpretive performance of two types of diagnostic mammography. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Radiologists interpreting mammograms in seven regions of the United States were invited to participate in a survey that collected information on their demographics, practice setting, breast imaging experience, and self-reported interpretive volume. Survey data from 244 radiologists were linked to data on 274,401 diagnostic mammograms performed for additional evaluation of a recent abnormal screening mammogram or to evaluate a breast problem, between 1998 and 2008. These data were also linked to patients' risk factors and follow-up data on breast cancer. We measured interpretive performance by false-positive rate, sensitivity, and AUC. Using logistic regression, we evaluated patient and radiologist characteristics associated with false-positive rate and sensitivity for each diagnostic mammogram type. RESULTS. Mammograms performed for additional evaluation of a recent mammogram had an overall false-positive rate of 11.9%, sensitivity of 90.2%, and AUC of 0.894; examinations done to evaluate a breast problem had an overall false-positive rate of 7.6%, sensitivity of 83.9%, and AUC of 0.871. Multiple patient characteristics were associated with measures of interpretive performance, and radiologist academic affiliation was associated with higher sensitivity for both indications for diagnostic mammograms. CONCLUSION. These results indicate the potential for improved radiologist training, using evaluation of their own performance relative to best practices, and for improved clinical outcomes with health care system changes to maximize access to diagnostic mammography interpretation in academic settings.

KW - Accuracy

KW - Characteristics

KW - Diagnostic mammography

KW - Patient

KW - Radiologist

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84938693521&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84938693521&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2214/AJR.14.13672

DO - 10.2214/AJR.14.13672

M3 - Article

C2 - 26204300

AN - SCOPUS:84938693521

VL - 205

SP - 456

EP - 463

JO - AJR. American journal of roentgenology

JF - AJR. American journal of roentgenology

SN - 0361-803X

IS - 2

ER -