Journal Article

Screening Mammograms by Community Radiologists: Variability in False-Positive Rates

Joann G. Elmore, Diana L. Miglioretti, Lisa M. Reisch, Mary B. Barton, William Kreuter, Cindy L. Christiansen and Suzanne W. Fletcher

in JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Volume 94, issue 18, pages 1373-1380
Published in print September 2002 | ISSN: 0027-8874
Published online September 2002 | e-ISSN: 1460-2105 | DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jnci/94.18.1373
Screening Mammograms by Community Radiologists: Variability in False-Positive Rates

Show Summary Details

Preview

Background: Previous studies have shown that the agreement among radiologists interpreting a test set of mammograms is relatively low. However, data available from real-world settings are sparse. We studied mammographic examination interpretations by radiologists practicing in a community setting and evaluated whether the variability in false-positive rates could be explained by patient, radiologist, and/or testing characteristics. Methods: We used medical records on randomly selected women aged 40–69 years who had had at least one screening mammographic examination in a community setting between January 1, 1985, and June 30, 1993. Twenty-four radiologists interpreted 8734 screening mammograms from 2169 women. Hierarchical logistic regression models were used to examine the impact of patient, radiologist, and testing characteristics. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: Radiologists varied widely in mammographic examination interpretations, with a mass noted in 0%–7.9%, calcification in 0%–21.3%, and fibrocystic changes in 1.6%–27.8% of mammograms read. False-positive rates ranged from 2.6% to 15.9%. Younger and more recently trained radiologists had higher false-positive rates. Adjustment for patient, radiologist, and testing characteristics narrowed the range of false-positive rates to 3.5%–7.9%. If a woman went to two randomly selected radiologists, her odds, after adjustment, of having a false-positive reading would be 1.5 times greater for the radiologist at higher risk of a false-positive reading, compared with the radiologist at lowest risk (95% highest posterior density interval [similar to a confidence interval] = 1.17 to 2.08). Conclusion: Community radiologists varied widely in their false-positive rates in screening mammograms; this variability range was reduced by half, but not eliminated, after statistical adjustment for patient, radiologist, and testing characteristics. These characteristics need to be considered when evaluating false-positive rates in community mammographic examination screening.

Journal Article.  5792 words.  Illustrated.

Subjects: Medical Oncology

Full text: subscription required

How to subscribe Recommend to my Librarian

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content. Please, subscribe or login to access all content. subscribe or login to access all content.