Performance benchmarks for screening mammography

Robert D. Rosenberg, Bonnie C. Yankaskas, Linn A. Abraham, Edward A. Sickles, Constance D. Lehman, Berta M. Geller, Patricia (Patty) Carney, Karla Kerlikowske, Diana S M Buist, Donald L. Weaver, William E. Barlow, Rachel Ballard-Barbash

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

253 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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 (PPV1), biopsy recommendation (PPV2), biopsy performed (PPV3), 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, 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 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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)55-66
Number of pages12
JournalRadiology
Volume241
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 2006
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Benchmarking
Mammography
Neoplasms
Research Ethics Committees
Biopsy
Breast Neoplasms
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
Radiologists
Informed Consent
Registries
Demography
Guidelines

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiological and Ultrasound Technology

Cite this

Rosenberg, R. D., Yankaskas, B. C., Abraham, L. A., Sickles, E. A., Lehman, C. D., Geller, B. M., ... Ballard-Barbash, R. (2006). Performance benchmarks for screening mammography. Radiology, 241(1), 55-66. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2411051504

Performance benchmarks for screening mammography. / Rosenberg, Robert D.; Yankaskas, Bonnie C.; Abraham, Linn A.; Sickles, Edward A.; Lehman, Constance D.; Geller, Berta M.; Carney, Patricia (Patty); Kerlikowske, Karla; Buist, Diana S M; Weaver, Donald L.; Barlow, William E.; Ballard-Barbash, Rachel.

In: Radiology, Vol. 241, No. 1, 10.2006, p. 55-66.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Rosenberg, RD, Yankaskas, BC, Abraham, LA, Sickles, EA, Lehman, CD, Geller, BM, Carney, PP, Kerlikowske, K, Buist, DSM, Weaver, DL, Barlow, WE & Ballard-Barbash, R 2006, 'Performance benchmarks for screening mammography', Radiology, vol. 241, no. 1, pp. 55-66. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2411051504
Rosenberg RD, Yankaskas BC, Abraham LA, Sickles EA, Lehman CD, Geller BM et al. Performance benchmarks for screening mammography. Radiology. 2006 Oct;241(1):55-66. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2411051504
Rosenberg, Robert D. ; Yankaskas, Bonnie C. ; Abraham, Linn A. ; Sickles, Edward A. ; Lehman, Constance D. ; Geller, Berta M. ; Carney, Patricia (Patty) ; Kerlikowske, Karla ; Buist, Diana S M ; Weaver, Donald L. ; Barlow, William E. ; Ballard-Barbash, Rachel. / Performance benchmarks for screening mammography. In: Radiology. 2006 ; Vol. 241, No. 1. pp. 55-66.
@article{11b84dc3723e4138a2a7e080e1fbcdf6,
title = "Performance benchmarks for screening mammography",
abstract = "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 (PPV1), biopsy recommendation (PPV2), biopsy performed (PPV3), 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, 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 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.",
author = "Rosenberg, {Robert D.} and Yankaskas, {Bonnie C.} and Abraham, {Linn A.} and Sickles, {Edward A.} and Lehman, {Constance D.} and Geller, {Berta M.} and Carney, {Patricia (Patty)} and Karla Kerlikowske and Buist, {Diana S M} and Weaver, {Donald L.} and Barlow, {William E.} and Rachel Ballard-Barbash",
year = "2006",
month = "10",
doi = "10.1148/radiol.2411051504",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "241",
pages = "55--66",
journal = "Radiology",
issn = "0033-8419",
publisher = "Radiological Society of North America Inc.",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Performance benchmarks for screening mammography

AU - Rosenberg, Robert D.

AU - Yankaskas, Bonnie C.

AU - Abraham, Linn A.

AU - Sickles, Edward A.

AU - Lehman, Constance D.

AU - Geller, Berta M.

AU - Carney, Patricia (Patty)

AU - Kerlikowske, Karla

AU - Buist, Diana S M

AU - Weaver, Donald L.

AU - Barlow, William E.

AU - Ballard-Barbash, Rachel

PY - 2006/10

Y1 - 2006/10

N2 - 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 (PPV1), biopsy recommendation (PPV2), biopsy performed (PPV3), 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, 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 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.

AB - 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 (PPV1), biopsy recommendation (PPV2), biopsy performed (PPV3), 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, 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 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33748923954&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33748923954&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1148/radiol.2411051504

DO - 10.1148/radiol.2411051504

M3 - Article

C2 - 16990671

AN - SCOPUS:33748923954

VL - 241

SP - 55

EP - 66

JO - Radiology

JF - Radiology

SN - 0033-8419

IS - 1

ER -