Jackson Sara L, Abraham Linn, Miglioretti Diana L, Buist Diana S M, Kerlikowske Karla, Onega Tracy, Carney Patricia A, Sickles Edward A, Elmore Joann G
1 Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Washington, 325 Ninth Ave, Seattle, WA 98104.
2 Group Health Research Institute, Group Health Cooperative, Seattle, WA.
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015 Aug;205(2):456-63. doi: 10.2214/AJR.14.13672.
Earlier studies of diagnostic mammography found wide unexplained variability in accuracy among radiologists. We assessed patient and radiologist characteristics associated with the interpretive performance of two types of diagnostic mammography.
Radiologists interpreting mammograms in seven regions of the United States were invited to participate in a survey that collected information on their demographics, practice setting, breast imaging experience, and self-reported interpretive volume. Survey data from 244 radiologists were linked to data on 274,401 diagnostic mammograms performed for additional evaluation of a recent abnormal screening mammogram or to evaluate a breast problem, between 1998 and 2008. These data were also linked to patients' risk factors and follow-up data on breast cancer. We measured interpretive performance by false-positive rate, sensitivity, and AUC. Using logistic regression, we evaluated patient and radiologist characteristics associated with false-positive rate and sensitivity for each diagnostic mammogram type.
Mammograms performed for additional evaluation of a recent mammogram had an overall false-positive rate of 11.9%, sensitivity of 90.2%, and AUC of 0.894; examinations done to evaluate a breast problem had an overall false-positive rate of 7.6%, sensitivity of 83.9%, and AUC of 0.871. Multiple patient characteristics were associated with measures of interpretive performance, and radiologist academic affiliation was associated with higher sensitivity for both indications for diagnostic mammograms.
These results indicate the potential for improved radiologist training, using evaluation of their own performance relative to best practices, and for improved clinical outcomes with health care system changes to maximize access to diagnostic mammography interpretation in academic settings.
早期关于诊断性乳腺钼靶检查的研究发现,放射科医生之间的准确性存在广泛且无法解释的差异。我们评估了与两种类型诊断性乳腺钼靶检查解读性能相关的患者和放射科医生特征。
邀请在美国七个地区解读乳腺钼靶片的放射科医生参与一项调查,该调查收集了他们的人口统计学信息、执业环境、乳腺影像经验以及自我报告的解读量。244名放射科医生的调查数据与1998年至2008年间为进一步评估近期异常筛查乳腺钼靶片或评估乳腺问题而进行的274,401例诊断性乳腺钼靶检查的数据相关联。这些数据还与患者的风险因素以及乳腺癌的随访数据相关联。我们通过假阳性率、敏感性和AUC来衡量解读性能。使用逻辑回归,我们评估了与每种诊断性乳腺钼靶检查类型的假阳性率和敏感性相关的患者和放射科医生特征。
为进一步评估近期乳腺钼靶片而进行的乳腺钼靶检查总体假阳性率为11.9%,敏感性为90.2%,AUC为0.894;为评估乳腺问题而进行的检查总体假阳性率为7.6%,敏感性为83.9%,AUC为0.871。多种患者特征与解读性能指标相关,并且放射科医生的学术背景与两种诊断性乳腺钼靶检查指征的较高敏感性相关。
这些结果表明,通过根据最佳实践评估自身表现来改进放射科医生培训具有潜力,并且通过改变医疗保健系统以最大限度地在学术环境中获得诊断性乳腺钼靶检查解读,可改善临床结果。