© 2002 by Oxford University Press
Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 94, No. 5, 369-375,
March 6, 2002
© 2002 Oxford University Press
ARTICLE |
Improving the Accuracy of Mammography: Volume and Outcome Relationships
Affiliations of authors: L. Esserman, C. Eberle (Department of Surgery), S. Chang (Institute for Health Policy Studies), University of California at San Francisco; H. Cowley, A. Gale, Institute of Behavioural Sciences, University of Derby, U.K.; A. Kirkpatrick, Scottish Breast Screening Programme, South-East Scotland Division, Edinburgh; K. Berbaum, Department of Radiology, University of Iowa, Iowa City.
Correspondence to: Laura Esserman, M.D., M.B.A., Carol Franc Buck Breast Care Center, UCSF/Mt. Zion Cancer Center, 1600 Divisadero St., 2nd Floor, San Francisco, CA 94143–1710 (e-mail: laura.esserman{at}ucsfmedctr.org).
Background: Countries with centralized, high-volume mammography screening programs, such as the U.K. and Sweden, emphasize high specificity (low percentage of false positives) and high sensitivity (high percentage of true positives). By contrast, the United States does not have centralized, high-volume screening programs, emphasizes high sensitivity, and has lower average specificity. We investigated whether high sensitivity can be achieved in the context of high specificity and whether the number of mammograms read per radiologist (reader volume) drives both sensitivity and specificity. Methods: The U.K.'s National Health Service Breast Screening Programme uses the PERFORMS 2 test as a teaching and assessment tool for radiologists. The same 60-film PERFORMS 2 test was given to 194 high-volume U.K. radiologists and to 60 U.S. radiologists, who were assigned to low-, medium-, or high-volume groups on the basis of the number of mammograms read per month. The standard binormal receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) model was fitted to the data of individual readers. Detection accuracy was measured by the sensitivity at specificity = 0.90, and differences among sensitivities were determined by analysis of variance. Results: The average sensitivity at specificity = 0.90 was 0.785 for U.K. radiologists, 0.756 for high-volume U.S. radiologists, 0.702 for medium-volume U.S. radiologists, and 0.648 for low-volume U.S. radiologists. At this specificity, low-volume U.S. radiologists had statistically significantly lower sensitivity than either high-volume U.S. radiologists or U.K. radiologists, and medium-volume U.S. radiologists had statistically significantly lower sensitivity than U.K. radiologists (P<.001, for all comparisons). Conclusions: Reader volume is an important determinant of mammogram sensitivity and specificity. High sensitivity (high cancer detection rate) can be achieved with high specificity (low false-positive rate) in high-volume centers. This study suggests that there is great potential for optimizing mammography screening.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  E. Linos, E. Linos, and G. Colditz Screening programme evaluation applied to airport security BMJ, December 22, 2007; 335(7633): 1290 - 1292. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 V. Kulasingam and E. P. Diamandis Proteomics Analysis of Conditioned Media from Three Breast Cancer Cell Lines: A Mine for Biomarkers and Therapeutic Targets Mol. Cell. Proteomics, November 1, 2007; 6(11): 1997 - 2011. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. Kuhl The Current Status of Breast MR Imaging * Part I. Choice of Technique, Image Interpretation, Diagnostic Accuracy, and Transfer to Clinical Practice Radiology, August 1, 2007; 244(2): 356 - 378. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D S Brettle, E Berry, and M A Smith The effect of experience on detectability in local area anatomical noise Br. J. Radiol., March 1, 2007; 80(951): 186 - 193. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. L. Kundel, C. F. Nodine, E. F. Conant, and S. P. Weinstein Holistic Component of Image Perception in Mammogram Interpretation: Gaze-tracking Study Radiology, February 1, 2007; 242(2): 396 - 402. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H J Scott and A G Gale Breast screening: PERFORMS identifies key mammographic training needs Br. J. Radiol., December 1, 2006; 79(Special_Issue_2): S127 - S133. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. Blanchard, J. A. Colbert, D. B. Kopans, R. Moore, E. F. Halpern, K. S. Hughes, B. L. Smith, K. K. Tanabe, and J. S. Michaelson Long-term Risk of False-Positive Screening Results and Subsequent Biopsy as a Function of Mammography Use. Radiology, August 1, 2006; 240(2): 335 - 342. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 X. Castells, E. Molins, and F. Macia Cumulative false positive recall rate and association with participant related factors in a population based breast cancer screening programme. J. Epidemiol. Community Health, April 1, 2006; 60(4): 316 - 321. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. S. Dua, C. M. Isacke, and G. P.H. Gui The Intraductal Approach to Breast Cancer Biomarker Discovery J. Clin. Oncol., March 1, 2006; 24(7): 1209 - 1216. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. A. Beam, E. F. Conant, and E. A. Sickles Correlation of Radiologist Rank as a Measure of Skill in Screening and Diagnostic Interpretation of Mammograms Radiology, February 1, 2006; 238(2): 446 - 453. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 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]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. G. Elmore, L. M. Reisch, M. B. Barton, W. E. Barlow, S. Rolnick, E. L. Harris, L. J. Herrinton, A. M. Geiger, R. K. Beverly, G. Hart, et al. Efficacy of Breast Cancer Screening in the Community According to Risk Level J Natl Cancer Inst, July 20, 2005; 97(14): 1035 - 1043. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. M. Wettstein Quality and Quality Improvement in Forensic Mental Health Evaluations J Am Acad Psychiatry Law, June 1, 2005; 33(2): 158 - 175. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. G. Elmore, K. Armstrong, C. D. Lehman, and S. W. Fletcher Screening for Breast Cancer JAMA, March 9, 2005; 293(10): 1245 - 1256. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. M. Wettstein Commentary: Quality Improvement and Psychiatric Fitness-for-Duty Evaluations of Physicians J Am Acad Psychiatry Law, March 1, 2005; 33(1): 92 - 94. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 I. Theberge, N. Hebert-Croteau, A. Langlois, D. Major, and J. Brisson Volume of screening mammography and performance in the Quebec population-based Breast Cancer Screening Program Can. Med. Assoc. J., January 18, 2005; 172(2): 195 - 199. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J.-L. Urbain Breast cancer screening, diagnostic accuracy and health care policies Can. Med. Assoc. J., January 18, 2005; 172(2): 210 - 211. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. E. Barlow, C. Chi, P. A. Carney, S. H. Taplin, C. D'Orsi, G. Cutter, R. E. Hendrick, and J. G. Elmore Accuracy of Screening Mammography Interpretation by Characteristics of Radiologists J Natl Cancer Inst, December 15, 2004; 96(24): 1840 - 1850. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. G. Baker The Central Role of Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) Curves in Evaluating Tests for the Early Detection of Cancer J Natl Cancer Inst, April 2, 2003; 95(7): 511 - 515. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. G. Elmore, D. L. Miglioretti, and P. A. Carney Does Practice Make Perfect When Interpreting Mammography? Part II J Natl Cancer Inst, February 19, 2003; 95(4): 250 - 252. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. A. Beam, E. F. Conant, and E. A. Sickles Association of Volume and Volume-Independent Factors With Accuracy in Screening Mammogram Interpretation J Natl Cancer Inst, February 19, 2003; 95(4): 282 - 290. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. N. Klabunde, E. Jones, M. L. Brown, and W. W. Davis Colorectal Cancer Screening with Double-Contrast Barium Enema: A National Survey of Diagnostic Radiologists Am. J. Roentgenol., December 1, 2002; 179(6): 1419 - 1427. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 Interpreting Mammograms: Quantity Improves Quality Journal Watch Women's Health, May 8, 2002; 2002(508): 7 - 7. [Full Text]
|
|