Are Radiologists’ Goals for Mammography Accuracy Consistent with Published Recommendations?

Rationale and Objectives Mammography quality assurance programs have been in place for more than a decade. We studied radiologists’ self-reported performance goals for accuracy in screening mammography and compared them to published recommendations. Materials and Methods A mailed survey of radiologi...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Academic radiology 2012-03, Vol.19 (3), p.289-295
Hauptverfasser: Jackson, Sara L., MD, MPH, Cook, Andrea J., PhD, Miglioretti, Diana L., PhD, Carney, Patricia A., PhD, Geller, Berta M., EdD, Onega, Tracy, PhD, Rosenberg, Robert D., MD, Brenner, R. James, MD, Elmore, Joann G., MD, MPH
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 295
container_issue 3
container_start_page 289
container_title Academic radiology
container_volume 19
creator Jackson, Sara L., MD, MPH
Cook, Andrea J., PhD
Miglioretti, Diana L., PhD
Carney, Patricia A., PhD
Geller, Berta M., EdD
Onega, Tracy, PhD
Rosenberg, Robert D., MD
Brenner, R. James, MD
Elmore, Joann G., MD, MPH
description Rationale and Objectives Mammography quality assurance programs have been in place for more than a decade. We studied radiologists’ self-reported performance goals for accuracy in screening mammography and compared them to published recommendations. Materials and Methods A mailed survey of radiologists at mammography registries in seven states within the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) assessed radiologists’ performance goals for interpreting screening mammograms. Self-reported goals were compared to published American College of Radiology (ACR) recommended desirable ranges for recall rate, false-positive rate, positive predictive value of biopsy recommendation (PPV2), and cancer detection rate. Radiologists’ goals for interpretive accuracy within desirable range were evaluated for associations with their demographic characteristics, clinical experience, and receipt of audit reports. Results The survey response rate was 71% (257 of 364 radiologists). The percentage of radiologists reporting goals within desirable ranges was 79% for recall rate, 22% for false-positive rate, 39% for PPV2, and 61% for cancer detection rate. The range of reported goals was 0%–100% for false-positive rate and PPV2. Primary academic affiliation, receiving more hours of breast imaging continuing medical education, and receiving audit reports at least annually were associated with desirable PPV2 goals. Radiologists reporting desirable cancer detection rate goals were more likely to have interpreted mammograms for 10 or more years, and >1000 mammograms per year. Conclusion Many radiologists report goals for their accuracy when interpreting screening mammograms that fall outside of published desirable benchmarks, particularly for false-positive rate and PPV2, indicating an opportunity for education.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.acra.2011.10.013
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_3274618</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S107663321100496X</els_id><sourcerecordid>920365873</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c509t-c29b336cf6aaeaa4deaceb17ab5dbd1abc293092409df67bf0122a874f149e373</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9ksFu1DAQhiNERUvhBTig3DhlO7azTiKhotUKWqQiUAGJC7Im9mTXSxJv7aRob32Nvl6fBEdbKuDAydb4-3-P5p8kecFgxoDJk80MtccZB8ZiYQZMPEqOWFmUWQ65fBzvUMhMCsEPk6chbADYXJbiSXLIORMAZXWUfF94Si_RWNe6lQ1DuLu5Tc8ctiFtnE8_YNe5lcftepcutB496l26dH2IKPVD-tMO6_TTWLc2rMmkl6Rd11FvcLARevMsOWiiFT2_P4-Tr-_eflmeZxcfz94vFxeZnkM1ZJpXtRBSNxKREHNDqKlmBdZzUxuGdQQEVDyHyjSyqBtgnGNZ5A3LKxKFOE5O977bse7I6Niax1Ztve3Q75RDq_5-6e1ardy1ErzIJSujwat7A--uRgqD6mzQ1LbYkxuDqjgIOS8LEUm-J7V3IXhqHn5hoKZY1EZNsagplqkWY4mil3_29yD5nUMEXu8BilO6tuRV0JZ6TcZ60oMyzv7f__QfuW5tbzW2P2hHYeNG38f5K6YCV6A-T4sx7QVjAHklv4lfIna3Uw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>920365873</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Are Radiologists’ Goals for Mammography Accuracy Consistent with Published Recommendations?</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Jackson, Sara L., MD, MPH ; Cook, Andrea J., PhD ; Miglioretti, Diana L., PhD ; Carney, Patricia A., PhD ; Geller, Berta M., EdD ; Onega, Tracy, PhD ; Rosenberg, Robert D., MD ; Brenner, R. James, MD ; Elmore, Joann G., MD, MPH</creator><creatorcontrib>Jackson, Sara L., MD, MPH ; Cook, Andrea J., PhD ; Miglioretti, Diana L., PhD ; Carney, Patricia A., PhD ; Geller, Berta M., EdD ; Onega, Tracy, PhD ; Rosenberg, Robert D., MD ; Brenner, R. James, MD ; Elmore, Joann G., MD, MPH</creatorcontrib><description>Rationale and Objectives Mammography quality assurance programs have been in place for more than a decade. We studied radiologists’ self-reported performance goals for accuracy in screening mammography and compared them to published recommendations. Materials and Methods A mailed survey of radiologists at mammography registries in seven states within the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) assessed radiologists’ performance goals for interpreting screening mammograms. Self-reported goals were compared to published American College of Radiology (ACR) recommended desirable ranges for recall rate, false-positive rate, positive predictive value of biopsy recommendation (PPV2), and cancer detection rate. Radiologists’ goals for interpretive accuracy within desirable range were evaluated for associations with their demographic characteristics, clinical experience, and receipt of audit reports. Results The survey response rate was 71% (257 of 364 radiologists). The percentage of radiologists reporting goals within desirable ranges was 79% for recall rate, 22% for false-positive rate, 39% for PPV2, and 61% for cancer detection rate. The range of reported goals was 0%–100% for false-positive rate and PPV2. Primary academic affiliation, receiving more hours of breast imaging continuing medical education, and receiving audit reports at least annually were associated with desirable PPV2 goals. Radiologists reporting desirable cancer detection rate goals were more likely to have interpreted mammograms for 10 or more years, and &gt;1000 mammograms per year. Conclusion Many radiologists report goals for their accuracy when interpreting screening mammograms that fall outside of published desirable benchmarks, particularly for false-positive rate and PPV2, indicating an opportunity for education.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1076-6332</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1878-4046</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2011.10.013</identifier><identifier>PMID: 22130089</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>accuracy ; Attitude of Health Personnel ; Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging ; Breast Neoplasms - epidemiology ; False Positive Reactions ; false-positive rate ; Female ; Goals ; Humans ; Male ; Mammography - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Observer Variation ; Physicians - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Prevalence ; Professional Competence - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Radiology ; Registries - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Screening mammography ; United States - epidemiology</subject><ispartof>Academic radiology, 2012-03, Vol.19 (3), p.289-295</ispartof><rights>AUR</rights><rights>2012 AUR</rights><rights>Copyright © 2012 AUR. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><rights>2011 The Association of University Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. 2011</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c509t-c29b336cf6aaeaa4deaceb17ab5dbd1abc293092409df67bf0122a874f149e373</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c509t-c29b336cf6aaeaa4deaceb17ab5dbd1abc293092409df67bf0122a874f149e373</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S107663321100496X$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,881,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22130089$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Jackson, Sara L., MD, MPH</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cook, Andrea J., PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Miglioretti, Diana L., PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carney, Patricia A., PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Geller, Berta M., EdD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Onega, Tracy, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rosenberg, Robert D., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brenner, R. James, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Elmore, Joann G., MD, MPH</creatorcontrib><title>Are Radiologists’ Goals for Mammography Accuracy Consistent with Published Recommendations?</title><title>Academic radiology</title><addtitle>Acad Radiol</addtitle><description>Rationale and Objectives Mammography quality assurance programs have been in place for more than a decade. We studied radiologists’ self-reported performance goals for accuracy in screening mammography and compared them to published recommendations. Materials and Methods A mailed survey of radiologists at mammography registries in seven states within the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) assessed radiologists’ performance goals for interpreting screening mammograms. Self-reported goals were compared to published American College of Radiology (ACR) recommended desirable ranges for recall rate, false-positive rate, positive predictive value of biopsy recommendation (PPV2), and cancer detection rate. Radiologists’ goals for interpretive accuracy within desirable range were evaluated for associations with their demographic characteristics, clinical experience, and receipt of audit reports. Results The survey response rate was 71% (257 of 364 radiologists). The percentage of radiologists reporting goals within desirable ranges was 79% for recall rate, 22% for false-positive rate, 39% for PPV2, and 61% for cancer detection rate. The range of reported goals was 0%–100% for false-positive rate and PPV2. Primary academic affiliation, receiving more hours of breast imaging continuing medical education, and receiving audit reports at least annually were associated with desirable PPV2 goals. Radiologists reporting desirable cancer detection rate goals were more likely to have interpreted mammograms for 10 or more years, and &gt;1000 mammograms per year. Conclusion Many radiologists report goals for their accuracy when interpreting screening mammograms that fall outside of published desirable benchmarks, particularly for false-positive rate and PPV2, indicating an opportunity for education.</description><subject>accuracy</subject><subject>Attitude of Health Personnel</subject><subject>Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Breast Neoplasms - epidemiology</subject><subject>False Positive Reactions</subject><subject>false-positive rate</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Goals</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Mammography - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Observer Variation</subject><subject>Physicians - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Prevalence</subject><subject>Professional Competence - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Radiology</subject><subject>Registries - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Screening mammography</subject><subject>United States - epidemiology</subject><issn>1076-6332</issn><issn>1878-4046</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9ksFu1DAQhiNERUvhBTig3DhlO7azTiKhotUKWqQiUAGJC7Im9mTXSxJv7aRob32Nvl6fBEdbKuDAydb4-3-P5p8kecFgxoDJk80MtccZB8ZiYQZMPEqOWFmUWQ65fBzvUMhMCsEPk6chbADYXJbiSXLIORMAZXWUfF94Si_RWNe6lQ1DuLu5Tc8ctiFtnE8_YNe5lcftepcutB496l26dH2IKPVD-tMO6_TTWLc2rMmkl6Rd11FvcLARevMsOWiiFT2_P4-Tr-_eflmeZxcfz94vFxeZnkM1ZJpXtRBSNxKREHNDqKlmBdZzUxuGdQQEVDyHyjSyqBtgnGNZ5A3LKxKFOE5O977bse7I6Niax1Ztve3Q75RDq_5-6e1ardy1ErzIJSujwat7A--uRgqD6mzQ1LbYkxuDqjgIOS8LEUm-J7V3IXhqHn5hoKZY1EZNsagplqkWY4mil3_29yD5nUMEXu8BilO6tuRV0JZ6TcZ60oMyzv7f__QfuW5tbzW2P2hHYeNG38f5K6YCV6A-T4sx7QVjAHklv4lfIna3Uw</recordid><startdate>20120301</startdate><enddate>20120301</enddate><creator>Jackson, Sara L., MD, MPH</creator><creator>Cook, Andrea J., PhD</creator><creator>Miglioretti, Diana L., PhD</creator><creator>Carney, Patricia A., PhD</creator><creator>Geller, Berta M., EdD</creator><creator>Onega, Tracy, PhD</creator><creator>Rosenberg, Robert D., MD</creator><creator>Brenner, R. James, MD</creator><creator>Elmore, Joann G., MD, MPH</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20120301</creationdate><title>Are Radiologists’ Goals for Mammography Accuracy Consistent with Published Recommendations?</title><author>Jackson, Sara L., MD, MPH ; Cook, Andrea J., PhD ; Miglioretti, Diana L., PhD ; Carney, Patricia A., PhD ; Geller, Berta M., EdD ; Onega, Tracy, PhD ; Rosenberg, Robert D., MD ; Brenner, R. James, MD ; Elmore, Joann G., MD, MPH</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c509t-c29b336cf6aaeaa4deaceb17ab5dbd1abc293092409df67bf0122a874f149e373</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>accuracy</topic><topic>Attitude of Health Personnel</topic><topic>Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Breast Neoplasms - epidemiology</topic><topic>False Positive Reactions</topic><topic>false-positive rate</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Goals</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Mammography - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Observer Variation</topic><topic>Physicians - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Prevalence</topic><topic>Professional Competence - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Radiology</topic><topic>Registries - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Screening mammography</topic><topic>United States - epidemiology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Jackson, Sara L., MD, MPH</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cook, Andrea J., PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Miglioretti, Diana L., PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carney, Patricia A., PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Geller, Berta M., EdD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Onega, Tracy, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rosenberg, Robert D., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brenner, R. James, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Elmore, Joann G., MD, MPH</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Academic radiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Jackson, Sara L., MD, MPH</au><au>Cook, Andrea J., PhD</au><au>Miglioretti, Diana L., PhD</au><au>Carney, Patricia A., PhD</au><au>Geller, Berta M., EdD</au><au>Onega, Tracy, PhD</au><au>Rosenberg, Robert D., MD</au><au>Brenner, R. James, MD</au><au>Elmore, Joann G., MD, MPH</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Are Radiologists’ Goals for Mammography Accuracy Consistent with Published Recommendations?</atitle><jtitle>Academic radiology</jtitle><addtitle>Acad Radiol</addtitle><date>2012-03-01</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>19</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>289</spage><epage>295</epage><pages>289-295</pages><issn>1076-6332</issn><eissn>1878-4046</eissn><abstract>Rationale and Objectives Mammography quality assurance programs have been in place for more than a decade. We studied radiologists’ self-reported performance goals for accuracy in screening mammography and compared them to published recommendations. Materials and Methods A mailed survey of radiologists at mammography registries in seven states within the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) assessed radiologists’ performance goals for interpreting screening mammograms. Self-reported goals were compared to published American College of Radiology (ACR) recommended desirable ranges for recall rate, false-positive rate, positive predictive value of biopsy recommendation (PPV2), and cancer detection rate. Radiologists’ goals for interpretive accuracy within desirable range were evaluated for associations with their demographic characteristics, clinical experience, and receipt of audit reports. Results The survey response rate was 71% (257 of 364 radiologists). The percentage of radiologists reporting goals within desirable ranges was 79% for recall rate, 22% for false-positive rate, 39% for PPV2, and 61% for cancer detection rate. The range of reported goals was 0%–100% for false-positive rate and PPV2. Primary academic affiliation, receiving more hours of breast imaging continuing medical education, and receiving audit reports at least annually were associated with desirable PPV2 goals. Radiologists reporting desirable cancer detection rate goals were more likely to have interpreted mammograms for 10 or more years, and &gt;1000 mammograms per year. Conclusion Many radiologists report goals for their accuracy when interpreting screening mammograms that fall outside of published desirable benchmarks, particularly for false-positive rate and PPV2, indicating an opportunity for education.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>22130089</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.acra.2011.10.013</doi><tpages>7</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1076-6332
ispartof Academic radiology, 2012-03, Vol.19 (3), p.289-295
issn 1076-6332
1878-4046
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_3274618
source MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals
subjects accuracy
Attitude of Health Personnel
Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging
Breast Neoplasms - epidemiology
False Positive Reactions
false-positive rate
Female
Goals
Humans
Male
Mammography - statistics & numerical data
Observer Variation
Physicians - statistics & numerical data
Prevalence
Professional Competence - statistics & numerical data
Radiology
Registries - statistics & numerical data
Screening mammography
United States - epidemiology
title Are Radiologists’ Goals for Mammography Accuracy Consistent with Published Recommendations?
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-08T10%3A20%3A18IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Are%20Radiologists%E2%80%99%20Goals%20for%20Mammography%20Accuracy%20Consistent%20with%20Published%20Recommendations?&rft.jtitle=Academic%20radiology&rft.au=Jackson,%20Sara%20L.,%20MD,%20MPH&rft.date=2012-03-01&rft.volume=19&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=289&rft.epage=295&rft.pages=289-295&rft.issn=1076-6332&rft.eissn=1878-4046&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.acra.2011.10.013&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E920365873%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=920365873&rft_id=info:pmid/22130089&rft_els_id=S107663321100496X&rfr_iscdi=true