Physician Predictors of Mammographic Accuracy
Open Access
- 1 March 2005
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute
- Vol. 97 (5), 358-367
- https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/dji060
Abstract
Background: The association between physician experience and the accuracy of screening mammography in community practice is not well studied. We identified characteristics of U.S. physicians associated with the accuracy of screening mammography. Methods: Data were obtained from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium and the American Medical Association Master File. Unadjusted mammography sensitivity and specificity were calculated according to physician characteristics. We modeled mammography sensitivity and specificity by multivariable logistic regression as a function of patient and physician characteristics. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: We studied 209 physicians who interpreted 1 220 046 screening mammograms from January 1, 1995, through December 31, 2000, of which 7143 (5.9 per 1000 mammograms) were associated with breast cancer within 12 months of screening. Each physician interpreted a mean of 6011 screening mammograms (95% confidence interval [CI] = 4998 to 6677), including a mean of 34 (95% CI = 28 to 40) from women diagnosed with breast cancer. The mean sensitivity was 77% (range = 29%–97%), and the mean false-positive rate was 10% (range = 1%–29%). After adjustment for the patient characteristics of those whose mammograms they interpreted, physician characteristics were strongly associated with specificity. Higher specificity was associated with at least 25 years (versus less than 10 years) since receipt of a medical degree (for physicians practicing for 25–29 years, odds ratio [OR] = 1.54, 95% CI = 1.14 to 2.08; P = .006), interpretation of 2500–4000 (versus 481–750) screening mammograms annually (OR = 1.30, 95% CI = 1.06 to 1.59; P = .011) and a high focus on screening mammography compared with diagnostic mammography (OR = 1.59, 95% CI = 1.37 to 1.82; P<.001). Higher overall accuracy was associated with more experience and with a higher focus on screening mammography. Compared with physicians who interpret 481–750 mammograms annually and had a low screening focus, physicians who interpret 2500–4000 mammograms annually and had a high screening focus had approximately 50% fewer false-positive examinations and detected a few less cancers. Conclusion: Raising the annual volume requirements in the Mammography Quality Standards Act might improve the overall quality of screening mammography in the United States.Keywords
This publication has 26 references indexed in Scilit:
- Comparison of Screening Mammography in the United States and the United KingdomJAMA, 2003
- Individual and Combined Effects of Age, Breast Density, and Hormone Replacement Therapy Use on the Accuracy of Screening MammographyAnnals of Internal Medicine, 2003
- Screening Mammograms by Community Radiologists: Variability in False-Positive RatesJNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2002
- Is Volume Related to Outcome in Health Care? A Systematic Review and Methodologic Critique of the LiteratureAnnals of Internal Medicine, 2002
- Does Diagnostic Accuracy in Mammography Depend on Radiologists' Experience?Journal of Women's Health, 1998
- The National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program: report on the first 4 years of mammography provided to medically underserved women.American Journal of Roentgenology, 1998
- Likelihood Ratios for Modern Screening MammographyJAMA, 1996
- Variability in the Interpretation of Screening Mammograms by US RadiologistsArchives of Internal Medicine, 1996
- Improvement in mammography interpretation skills in a community radiology practice after dedicated teaching courses: 2-year medical audit of 38,633 cases.Radiology, 1992
- Medical audit of a rapid-throughput mammography screening practice: methodology and results of 27,114 examinations.Radiology, 1990