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) Appendix 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 Rosenberg, R. D. Articles by Ballard-Barbash, R. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Rosenberg, R. D. Articles by Ballard-Barbash, R.

Performance Benchmarks for Screening Mammography¹

¹ From the Department of Radiology, University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center, MSC10 5530, 1 University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131 (R.D.R.); Department of Radiology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC (B.C.Y.); Group Health Center for Health Studies, Seattle, Wash (L.A.A., D.S.M.B., W.E.B.) and Cancer Research and Biostatistics (W.E.B.), Seattle, Wash; Department of Radiology, University of California San Francisco School of Medicine, San Francisco, Calif (E.A.S.); Department of Radiology, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, Wash (C.D.L.); Office of Health Promotion Research (B.M.G., D.L.W.), Department of Pathology (D.L.W.), and Vermont Cancer Center (B.M.G., D.L.W.), University of Vermont, Burlington, Vt; Department of Community and Family Medicine, Dartmouth Medical School, Hanover, NH (P.A.C.); General Internal Medicine Section, Departments of Veterans Affairs and Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, Calif (K.K.); and Applied Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Md (R.B.). Received September 7, 2005; revision requested November 10; revision received January 7, 2006; final version accepted February 1. Supported by cooperative grants U0169976 (R.D.R.), U01CA70040 (B.C.Y.), U01CA63740 (E.A.S., K.K.), U01CA70013 (B.M.G., D.L.W.), U01CA86076 (L.A.A., W.E.B.), U01CA63731 (D.S.M.B.), and U01CA86082-01 (P.A.C.) from the National Cancer Institute. Address correspondence to R.D.R. (e-mail: rrosenb{at}unm.edu).

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, <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%; PPV₁, 4.8% and 3.4%–6.2%; and PPV₂, 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.

Supplemental material: radiology.rsnajnls.org/cgi/content/full/241/1/55/DC1

© RSNA, 2006

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. M. Lee, D. Georgian-Smith, G. S. Gazelle, E. F. Halpern, E. A. Rafferty, R. H. Moore, E. D. Yeh, H. A. D'Alessandro, R. A. Hitt, and D. B. Kopans Detecting Nonpalpable Recurrent Breast Cancer: The Role of Routine Mammographic Screening of Transverse Rectus Abdominis Myocutaneous Flap Reconstructions Radiology, August 1, 2008; 248(2): 398 - 405. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				W. A. Berg, J. D. Blume, J. B. Cormack, E. B. Mendelson, D. Lehrer, M. Bohm-Velez, E. D. Pisano, R. A. Jong, W. P. Evans, M. J. Morton, et al. Combined Screening With Ultrasound and Mammography vs Mammography Alone in Women at Elevated Risk of Breast Cancer JAMA, May 14, 2008; 299(18): 2151 - 2163. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. G. Elmore and R. J. Brenner The More Eyes, the Better to See? From Double to Quadruple Reading of Screening Mammograms J Natl Cancer Inst, August 1, 2007; 99(15): 1141 - 1143. [Full Text] [PDF]