Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Published online before print July 26, 2002, 10.1148/radiol.2243011482

(Radiology 2002;224:861.)

A more recent version of this article appeared on September 1, 2002
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
2243011482v1
224/3/861    most recent
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Sickles, E. A.
Right arrow Articles by Dee, K. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Sickles, E. A.
Right arrow Articles by Dee, K. E.
© RSNA, 2002

Breast Imaging

Performance Parameters for Screening and Diagnostic Mammography: Specialist and General Radiologists1

Edward A. Sickles, MD, Dulcy E. Wolverton, MD and Katherine E. Dee, MD2

1 From the Department of Radiology, University of California (UCSF) Medical Center, Box 1667, San Francisco, CA 94143-1667. Received September 4, 2001; revision requested October 16; final revision received February 28, 2002; accepted March 20. Supported by Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium cooperative agreement no. 1U01 CA 63740 from the National Cancer Institute. Address correspondence to E.A.S.

PURPOSE: To evaluate performance parameters for radiologists in a practice of breast imaging specialists and general diagnostic radiologists who interpret a large series of consecutive screening and diagnostic mammographic studies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data (ie, patient age; family history of breast cancer; availability of previous mammograms for comparison; and abnormal interpretation, cancer detection, and stage 0–I cancer detection rates) were derived from review of mammographic studies obtained from January 1997 through August 2001. The breast imaging specialists have substantially more initial training in mammography and at least six times more continuing education in mammography, and they interpret 10 times more mammographic studies per year than the general radiologists. Differences between specialist and general radiologist performances at both screening and diagnostic examinations were assessed for significance by using Student t and {chi}2 tests.

RESULTS: The study involved 47,798 screening and 13,286 diagnostic mammographic examinations. Abnormal interpretation rates for screening mammography (ie, recall rate) were 4.9% for specialists and 7.1% for generalists (P < .001); and for diagnostic mammography (ie, recommended biopsy rate), 15.8% and 9.9%, respectively (P < .001). Cancer detection rates at screening mammography were 6.0 cancer cases per 1,000 examinations for specialists and 3.4 per 1,000 for generalists (P = .007); and at diagnostic mammography, 59.0 per 1,000 and 36.6 per 1,000, respectively (P < .001). Stage 0–I cancer detection rates at screening mammography were 5.3 cancer cases per 1,000 examinations for specialists and 3.0 per 1,000 for generalists (P = .012); and at diagnostic mammography, 43.9 per 1,000 and 27.0 per 1,000, respectively (P < .001).

CONCLUSION: Specialist radiologists detect more cancers and more early-stage cancers, recommend more biopsies, and have lower recall rates than general radiologists.

© RSNA, 2002

Index terms: Breast neoplasms, diagnosis, 00.11, 00.30 • Breast neoplasms, radiography, 00.11, 00.30 • Breast radiography, quality assurance, 00.11 • Cancer screening, 00.11, 00.30 • Radiology and radiologists, observer performance




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 JNCI J Natl Cancer InstHome page
S. Hofvind, P. M. Vacek, J. Skelly, D. L. Weaver, and B. M. Geller
Comparing Screening Mammography for Early Breast Cancer Detection in Vermont and Norway
J Natl Cancer Inst, August 6, 2008; 100(15): 1082 - 1091.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JNCI J Natl Cancer InstHome page
S. Taplin, L. Abraham, W. E. Barlow, J. J. Fenton, E. A. Berns, P. A. Carney, G. R. Cutter, E. A. Sickles, D. Carl, and J. G. Elmore
Mammography Facility Characteristics Associated With Interpretive Accuracy of Screening Mammography
J Natl Cancer Inst, June 18, 2008; 100(12): 876 - 887.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JNCI J Natl Cancer InstHome page
D. L. Miglioretti, R. Smith-Bindman, L. Abraham, R. J. Brenner, P. A. Carney, E. J. A. Bowles, D. S. M. Buist, and J. G. Elmore
Radiologist Characteristics Associated With Interpretive Performance of Diagnostic Mammography
J Natl Cancer Inst, December 19, 2007; 99(24): 1854 - 1863.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JCOHome page
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]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
Y. Jiang, D. L. Miglioretti, C. E. Metz, and R. A. Schmidt
Breast Cancer Detection Rate: Designing Imaging Trials to Demonstrate Improvements
Radiology, May 1, 2007; 243(2): 360 - 367.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
J. W. T. Leung and E. A. Sickles
Developing Asymmetry Identified on Mammography: Correlation with Imaging Outcome and Pathologic Findings
Am. J. Roentgenol., March 1, 2007; 188(3): 667 - 675.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
P. A. Carney, L. A. Abraham, D. L. Miglioretti, K. R. Yabroff, E. A. Sickles, D. S. M. Buist, C. J. Kasales, B. M. Geller, R. D. Rosenberg, M. B. Dignan, et al.
Factors Associated with Imaging and Procedural Events Used to Detect Breast Cancer After Screening Mammography
Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2007; 188(2): 385 - 392.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
J. W. T. Leung, F. R. Margolin, K. E. Dee, R. P. Jacobs, S. R. Denny, and John. D. Schrumpf
Performance Parameters for Screening and Diagnostic Mammography in a Community Practice: Are There Differences Between Specialists and General Radiologists?
Am. J. Roentgenol., January 1, 2007; 188(1): 236 - 241.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal
Effect of Directed Training on Reader Performance for CT Colonography: Multicenter Study
Radiology, January 1, 2007; 242(1): 152 - 161.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
S. H. Taplin, C. M. Rutter, and C. D. Lehman
Testing the effect of computer-assisted detection on interpretive performance in screening mammography.
Am. J. Roentgenol., December 1, 2006; 187(6): 1475 - 1482.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
R. D. Rosenberg, B. C. Yankaskas, L. A. Abraham, E. A. Sickles, C. D. Lehman, B. M. Geller, P. A. Carney, K. Kerlikowske, D. S. M. Buist, D. L. Weaver, et al.
Performance Benchmarks for Screening Mammography
Radiology, October 1, 2006; 241(1): 55 - 66.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
E. S. Burnside, D. L. Rubin, J. P. Fine, R. D. Shachter, G. A. Sisney, and W. K. Leung
Bayesian Network to Predict Breast Cancer Risk of Mammographic Microcalcifications and Reduce Number of Benign Biopsy Results: Initial Experience
Radiology, September 1, 2006; 240(3): 666 - 673.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
J. C. Dean and C. C. Ilvento
Improved cancer detection using computer-aided detection with diagnostic and screening mammography: prospective study of 104 cancers.
Am. J. Roentgenol., July 1, 2006; 187(1): 20 - 28.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
W. A. Berg, J. D. Blume, J. B. Cormack, E. B. Mendelson, and E. L. Madsen
Lesion Detection and Characterization in a Breast US Phantom: Results of the ACRIN 6666 Investigators
Radiology, June 1, 2006; 239(3): 693 - 702.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
M. A. Ganott, J. H. Sumkin, J. L. King, A. H. Klym, V. J. Catullo, C. S. Cohen, and D. Gur
Screening Mammography: Do Women Prefer a Higher Recall Rate Given the Possibility of Earlier Detection of Cancer?
Radiology, March 1, 2006; 238(3): 793 - 800.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
A. J. Coldman, D. Major, G. P. Doyle, Y. D'yachkova, N. Phillips, J. Onysko, R. Shumak, N. E. Smith, and N. Wadden
Organized Breast Screening Programs in Canada: Effect of Radiologist Reading Volumes on Outcomes
Radiology, March 1, 2006; 238(3): 809 - 815.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
E. S. Burnside, J. M. Park, J. P. Fine, and G. A. Sisney
The Use of Batch Reading to Improve the Performance of Screening Mammography
Am. J. Roentgenol., September 1, 2005; 185(3): 790 - 796.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
E. A. Sickles, D. L. Miglioretti, R. Ballard-Barbash, B. M. Geller, J. W. T. Leung, R. D. Rosenberg, R. Smith-Bindman, and B. C. Yankaskas
Performance Benchmarks for Diagnostic Mammography
Radiology, June 1, 2005; 235(3): 775 - 790.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
D. Gur, L. P. Wallace, A. H. Klym, L. A. Hardesty, G. S. Abrams, R. Shah, and J. H. Sumkin
Trends in Recall, Biopsy, and Positive Biopsy Rates for Screening Mammography in an Academic Practice
Radiology, May 1, 2005; 235(2): 396 - 401.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JNCI J Natl Cancer InstHome page
R. Smith-Bindman, P. Chu, D. L. Miglioretti, C. Quale, R. D. Rosenberg, G. Cutter, B. Geller, P. Bacchetti, E. A. Sickles, and K. Kerlikowske
Physician Predictors of Mammographic Accuracy
J Natl Cancer Inst, March 2, 2005; 97(5): 358 - 367.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
D. Gur, J. S. Stalder, L. A. Hardesty, B. Zheng, J. H. Sumkin, D. M. Chough, B. E. Shindel, and H. E. Rockette
Computer-aided Detection Performance in Mammographic Examination of Masses: Assessment
Radiology, November 1, 2004; 233(2): 418 - 423.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
M. Mullerad, H. Hricak, L. Wang, H.-N. Chen, M. W. Kattan, and P. T. Scardino
Prostate Cancer: Detection of Extracapsular Extension by Genitourinary and General Body Radiologists at MR Imaging
Radiology, July 1, 2004; 232(1): 140 - 146.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
M. A. Helvie, L. Hadjiiski, E. Makariou, H.-P. Chan, N. Petrick, B. Sahiner, S.-C. B. Lo, M. Freedman, D. Adler, J. Bailey, et al.
Sensitivity of Noncommercial Computer-aided Detection System for Mammographic Breast Cancer Detection: Pilot Clinical Trial
Radiology, April 1, 2004; 231(1): 208 - 214.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
D. M. Ikeda, R. L. Birdwell, K. F. O'Shaughnessy, E. A. Sickles, and R. J. Brenner
Computer-aided Detection Output on 172 Subtle Findings on Normal Mammograms Previously Obtained in Women with Breast Cancer Detected at Follow-Up Screening Mammography
Radiology, March 1, 2004; 230(3): 811 - 819.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JNCI J Natl Cancer InstHome page
D. Gur, J. H. Sumkin, H. E. Rockette, M. Ganott, C. Hakim, L. Hardesty, W. R. Poller, R. Shah, and L. Wallace
Changes in Breast Cancer Detection and Mammography Recall Rates After the Introduction of a Computer-Aided Detection System
J Natl Cancer Inst, February 4, 2004; 96(3): 185 - 190.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
C. A. Beam, E. F. Conant, E. A. Sickles, and S. P. Weinstein
Evaluation of Proscriptive Health Care Policy Implementation in Screening Mammography
Radiology, November 1, 2003; 229(2): 534 - 540.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JAMAHome page
R. Smith-Bindman, P. W. Chu, D. L. Miglioretti, E. A. Sickles, R. Blanks, R. Ballard-Barbash, J. K. Bobo, N. C. Lee, M. G. Wallis, J. Patnick, et al.
Comparison of Screening Mammography in the United States and the United Kingdom
JAMA, October 22, 2003; 290(16): 2129 - 2137.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
M. A. Guenin, E. A. Sickles, D. E. Wolverton, and K. E. Dee
Generalists versus Specialists in Mammography [letter] * Dr Sickles and colleagues respond:
Radiology, May 1, 2003; 227(2): 609 - 611.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
W. A. Berg
Rationale for a Trial of Screening Breast Ultrasound: American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN) 6666
Am. J. Roentgenol., May 1, 2003; 180(5): 1225 - 1228.
[Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 2002 by the Radiological Society of North America.