HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Beam, C. A. Articles by Sickles, E. A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Beam, C. A. Articles by Sickles, E. A.

Correlation of Radiologist Rank as a Measure of Skill in Screening and Diagnostic Interpretation of Mammograms¹

¹ From the Biostatistics Core, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, Tampa, Fla. From the 2005 RSNA Annual Meeting. Received December 7, 2004; revision requested February 3, 2005; revision received March 31; accepted May 2; final version accepted July 11. Address correspondence to C.A.B., Division of Epidemiology and Statistics, University of Illinois at Chicago, School of Public Health, 1603 W Taylor St, Chicago, IL 60612-4394 (e-mail: cbeam{at}uic.edu).

Purpose: To determine whether skill in the interpretation of screening mammograms is correlated with skill in the interpretation of diagnostic mammograms.

Materials and Methods: The institutional review board of the University of South Florida approved this study. This study was determined to be exempt from informed consent requirements because of the retrospective use of images and was conducted before HIPPA requirements were implemented. A total of 59 radiologists interpreted screening and diagnostic performance test sets of mammograms with a 1-year interval. Interpretations were recorded with modifications of the Breast Imaging and Reporting Data System. Radiologist skill was measured as the radiologist's ranking among his or her cohort in each of several measures of performance (ie, performance test receiver operating characteristic curve area, performance test screening sensitivity, performance test diagnostic sensitivity, and associated specificities). Correlations between radiologist rank in screening and rank in the diagnostic performance test measures were analyzed with the Spearman rank correlation statistical test.

Results: Radiologist rank in screening interpretations and in diagnostic interpretations was found to be significantly correlated in all measurements (P < .05). However, only two measurments (ie, receiver operating characteristic curve area rank correlation of 0.327 and sensitivity rank correlation of 0.402) remained significant after adjusting for multiple testing. The correlation between ranked screening specificity and ranked diagnostic specificity (0.296) was significant at only the .05 level.

Conclusion: The interpretive performance of radiologists among their peers is moderately correlated between screening and diagnostic interpretations. Thus, proficiency in one area does not guarantee proficiency in the other area for some radiologists.

© RSNA, 2006

This article has been cited by other articles:

				H. Singh, S. Sethi, M. Raber, and L. A. Petersen Errors in Cancer Diagnosis: Current Understanding and Future Directions J. Clin. Oncol., November 1, 2007; 25(31): 5009 - 5018. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. H. Cha, W. K. Moon, N. Cho, S. M. Kim, S. H. Park, B.-K. Han, Y. H. Choe, J. M. Park, and J.-G. Im Characterization of Benign and Malignant Solid Breast Masses: Comparison of Conventional US and Tissue Harmonic Imaging Radiology, December 1, 2006; 242(1): 63 - 69. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]