Time Trends in Radiologists' Interpretive Performance at Screening Mammography from the Community-based Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, 1996-2004

被引:25
|
作者
Ichikawa, Laura E. [1 ]
Barlow, William E. [1 ]
Anderson, Melissa L. [1 ]
Taplin, Stephen H. [2 ]
Geller, Berta M. [3 ]
Brenner, R. James [4 ,5 ]
机构
[1] Grp Hlth Res Inst, Seattle, WA 98101 USA
[2] NCI, Appl Res Program, Div Canc Control & Populat Sci, Bethesda, MD 20892 USA
[3] Univ Vermont, Vermont Canc Ctr, Burlington, VT USA
[4] Bay Imaging Consultants, Carol Ann Read Breast Hlth Ctr, Oakland, CA USA
[5] Univ Calif San Francisco, Dept Radiol, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA
关键词
ACCURACY; ASSOCIATION; THERAPY;
D O I
10.1148/radiol.10091881
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Purpose: To examine time trends in radiologists' interpretive performance at screening mammography between 1996 and 2004. Materials and Methods: All study procedures were institutional review board approved and HIPAA compliant. Data were collected on subsequent screening mammograms obtained from 1996 to 2004 in women aged 40-79 years who were followed up for 1 year for breast cancer. Recall rate, sensitivity, and specificity were examined annually. Generalized estimating equation (GEE) and random-effects models were used to test for linear trend. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), tumor histologic findings, and size of the largest dimension or diameter of the tumor were also examined. Results: Data on 2 542 049 subsequent screening mammograms and 12 498 cancers diagnosed in the follow-up period were included in this study. Recall rate increased from 6.7% to 8.6%, sensitivity increased from 71.4% to 83.8%, and specificity decreased from 93.6% to 91.7%. In GEE models, adjusted odds ratios per calendar year were 1.04 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02, 1.05) for recall rate, 1.09 (95% CI: 1.07. 1.12) for sensitivity, and 0.96 (95% CI: 0.95, 0.98) for specificity (P < .001 for all). Random-effects model results were similar. The AUC increased over time: 0.869 (95% CI: 0.861, 0.877) for 1996-1998, 0.884 (95% CI: 0.879, 0.890) for 1999-2001, and 0.891 (95% CI: 0.885, 0.896) for 2002-2004 (P < .001). Tumor histologic findings and size remained constant. Conclusion: Recall rate and sensitivity for screening mammograms increased, whereas specificity decreased from 1996 to 2004 among women with a prior mammogram. This trend remained after accounting for risk factors. The net effect was an improvement in overall discrimination, a measure of the probability that a mammogram with cancer in the follow-up period has a higher Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System assessment category than does a mammogram without cancer in the follow-up period. (C) RSNA, 2010
引用
收藏
页码:74 / 82
页数:9
相关论文
共 29 条
  • [1] Time trends of process and impact indicators in Italian mammography screening programmes - 1996-2004
    不详
    [J]. EPIDEMIOLOGIA & PREVENZIONE, 2007, 31 (2-3): : 21 - 32
  • [2] 2017 Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium Reports on Interpretive Performance at Screening and Diagnostic Mammography: Welcome New Data, But Not as Benchmarks for Practice
    D'Orsi, Carl J.
    Sickles, Edward A.
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 2017, 283 (01) : 7 - 9
  • [3] Opportunistic breast cancer early detection in Tyrol, Austria 1996-2004 - Is a mammography-screening program necessary?
    Frede, TE
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2005, 55 (01) : 130 - 138
  • [4] Digital Breast Tomosynthesis versus Digital Mammography Screening Performance on Successive Screening Rounds from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium
    Sprague, Brian L.
    Coley, Rebecca Yates
    Lowry, Kathryn P.
    Kerlikowske, Karla
    Henderson, Louise M.
    Su, Yu-Ru
    Lee, Christoph I.
    Onega, Tracy
    Bowles, Erin J. A.
    Herschorn, Sally D.
    diFlorio-Alexander, Roberta M.
    Miglioretti, Diana L.
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 2023, 307 (05) : e223142
  • [5] National Performance Benchmarks for Modern Screening Digital Mammography: Update from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium
    Lehman, Constance D.
    Arao, Robert F.
    Sprague, Brian L.
    Lee, Janie M.
    Buist, Diana S. M.
    Kerlikowske, Karla
    Henderson, Louise M.
    Onega, Tracy
    Tosteson, Anna N. A.
    Rauscher, Garth H.
    Miglioretti, Diana L.
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 2017, 283 (01) : 49 - 58
  • [6] New Screening Performance Metrics for Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in US Community Practice from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium
    Lee, Cindy S.
    Moy, Linda
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 2023, 307 (04)
  • [7] Community-Based Breast Cancer Screening Using Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Versus Digital Mammography: Comparison of Screening Performance and Tumor Characteristics
    Regen-Tuero, Helaina C.
    Ram, Shruthi
    Gass, Jennifer S.
    Lourenco, Ana P.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2022, 218 (02) : 249 - 256
  • [8] Trends in Annual Surveillance Mammography Participation Among Breast Cancer Survivors From 2004 to 2016
    Lowry, Kathryn P.
    Callaway, Katherine A.
    Lee, Janie M.
    Zhang, Fang
    Ross-Degnan, Dennis
    Wharam, J. Frank
    Kerlikowske, Karla
    Wernli, Karen J.
    Kurian, Allison W.
    Henderson, Louise M.
    Stout, Natasha K.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL COMPREHENSIVE CANCER NETWORK, 2022, 20 (04): : 379 - +
  • [9] Tissue sampling frequency and breast pathology diagnoses following mammography: Time trends and age group analysis from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC)
    Allison, Kimberly H.
    Abraham, Linn A.
    Weaver, Donald L.
    Tosteson, Anna N. A.
    Onega, Tracy
    Geller, Berta M.
    Kerlikowske, Karla
    Carney, Patricia A.
    Ichikawa, Laura E.
    Buist, Diana S. M.
    Elmore, Joann G.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2013, 31 (15)
  • [10] National Performance Benchmarks for Modern Diagnostic Digital Mammography: Update from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium
    Sprague, Brian L.
    Arao, Robert F.
    Miglioretti, Diana L.
    Henderson, Louise M.
    Buist, Diana S. M.
    Onega, Tracy
    Rauscher, Garth H.
    Lee, Janie M.
    Tosteson, Anna N. A.
    Kerlikowske, Karla
    Lehman, Constance D.
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 2017, 283 (01) : 59 - 69