Decreased accuracy in interpretation of community-based screening mammography for women with multiple clinical risk factors
- PMID: 19744825
- PMCID: PMC2837135
- DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.008
Decreased accuracy in interpretation of community-based screening mammography for women with multiple clinical risk factors
Abstract
Objective: To assess the impact of women's breast cancer risk factors (use of hormone therapy, family history of breast cancer, previous breast biopsy) on radiologists' mammographic interpretive performance and whether the influence of risk factors varies according to radiologist characteristics.
Study design and setting: Screening mammograms (n=638,947) performed from 1996 to 2005 by 134 radiologists from three Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium registries was linked to cancer outcomes, radiologist surveys, and patient questionnaires. Interpretive performance measures were modeled using marginal and conditional logistic regression.
Results: Having one or more clinical risk factors was associated with higher recall rates (1 vs. 0 risk factors: odds ratio [OR]=1.17, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.15-1.19; > or = 2 vs. 0: OR=1.43, 95% CI=1.40-1.47) and lower specificity (1 vs. 0: OR=0.86 [95% CI=0.84-0.88]; > or = 2 vs. 0: OR=0.70 [95% CI=0.68-0.72]) without a corresponding improvement in sensitivity and only a small increase in positive predictive value (1 vs. 0: OR=1.08 [95% CI=0.99-1.19]; > or = 2 vs. 0: OR=1.12 [95% CI=0.99-1.26]). There was no indication that influence of risk factors varied by radiologist characteristics.
Conclusion: Women with clinical risk factors who undergo screening mammography are more likely recalled for false-positive evaluation without an associated increase in cancer detection. Radiologists and patients with risk factors should be aware of this increased risk of adverse screening events.
Copyright 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Similar articles
-
Variability of interpretive accuracy among diagnostic mammography facilities.J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009 Jun 3;101(11):814-27. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djp105. Epub 2009 May 26. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009. PMID: 19470953 Free PMC article.
-
Effect of radiologists' diagnostic work-up volume on interpretive performance.Radiology. 2014 Nov;273(2):351-64. doi: 10.1148/radiol.14132806. Epub 2014 Jun 24. Radiology. 2014. PMID: 24960110 Free PMC article.
-
Variability in interpretive performance at screening mammography and radiologists' characteristics associated with accuracy.Radiology. 2009 Dec;253(3):641-51. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2533082308. Epub 2009 Oct 28. Radiology. 2009. PMID: 19864507 Free PMC article.
-
Radiologists' interpretive efficiency and variability in true- and false-positive detection when screen-reading with tomosynthesis (3D-mammography) relative to standard mammography in population screening.Breast. 2015 Dec;24(6):687-93. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2015.08.012. Epub 2015 Oct 1. Breast. 2015. PMID: 26433751 Review.
-
Computer-aided detection mammography for breast cancer screening: systematic review and meta-analysis.Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2009 Jun;279(6):881-90. doi: 10.1007/s00404-008-0841-y. Epub 2008 Nov 21. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2009. PMID: 19023581 Review.
Cited by
-
Association between Screening Mammography Recall Rate and Interval Cancers in the UK Breast Cancer Service Screening Program: A Cohort Study.Radiology. 2018 Jul;288(1):47-54. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2018171539. Epub 2018 Apr 3. Radiology. 2018. PMID: 29613846 Free PMC article.
-
Factors Associated With Rates of False-Positive and False-Negative Results From Digital Mammography Screening: An Analysis of Registry Data.Ann Intern Med. 2016 Feb 16;164(4):226-35. doi: 10.7326/M15-0971. Epub 2016 Jan 12. Ann Intern Med. 2016. PMID: 26756902 Free PMC article.
-
Patient and Radiologist Characteristics Associated With Accuracy of Two Types of Diagnostic Mammograms.AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015 Aug;205(2):456-63. doi: 10.2214/AJR.14.13672. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015. PMID: 26204300 Free PMC article.
-
Criteria for identifying radiologists with acceptable screening mammography interpretive performance on basis of multiple performance measures.AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015 Apr;204(4):W486-91. doi: 10.2214/AJR.13.12313. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015. PMID: 25794100 Free PMC article.
-
The influence of mammographic technologists on radiologists' ability to interpret screening mammograms in community practice.Acad Radiol. 2015 Mar;22(3):278-89. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2014.09.013. Epub 2014 Nov 27. Acad Radiol. 2015. PMID: 25435185 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Elmore J, Choe J. Breast cancer screening for women in their 40s: moving from controversy about data to helping individual women. Ann Intern Med. 2007;146(7):529–31. - PubMed
-
- Elmore JG, Wells CK, Howard DH, Feinstein AR. The impact of clinical history on mammographic interpretations. JAMA. 1997;277(1):49–52. - PubMed
-
- Kerlikowske K, Carney PA, Geller B, Mandelson MT, Taplin SH, Malvin K, Ernster V, Urban N, Cutter G, Rosenberg R, Ballard-Barbash R. Performance of screening mammography among women with and without a first-degree relative with breast cancer. Ann Intern Med. 2000;133(11):855–63. - PubMed
-
- Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, Sickles EA, Ernster V. Effect of age, breast density, and family history on the sensitivity of first screening mammography. JAMA. 1996;276(1):33–8. - PubMed
-
- Ballard-Barbash R, Taplin SH, Yankaskas BC, Ernster VL, Rosenberg RD, Carney PA, Barlow WE, Geller BM, Kerlikowske K, Edwards BK, Lynch CF, Urban N, Chrvala CA, Key CR, Poplack SP, Worden JK, Kessler LG. Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium: a national mammography screening and outcomes database. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1997;169(4):1001–8. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
- U55/CCR921930-02/PHS HHS/United States
- N01-PC-35142/PC/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- U01 CA063736-10/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- R01 CA107623-06/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- U01 CA86082/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- U58000848/PHS HHS/United States
- K05 CA104699/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- N01PC35142/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- U01 CA086082-09/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- R01 CA107623-07/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- 1K05 CA104699/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- HS-10591/HS/AHRQ HHS/United States
- N01 CN067009/CN/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- R01 CA107623/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- U01 CA086082/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- U01 CA063731/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- U01 CA086076/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- K05 CA104699-05/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- R01 HS010591/HS/AHRQ HHS/United States
- U01CA86076/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- U01 CA063736/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- 1R01 CA107623/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- U01 CA086076-09/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- U55/CCU-121912/PHS HHS/United States
- U01 CA63736/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- U01 CA063731-14/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- U01 CA63731/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
