The majority of radiologists in U.S. community practice surpass most performance recommendations of the American College of Radiology; however, abnormal interpretation rates continue to be higher than the recommended rate for almost half of radiologists interpreting screening mammograms.
To establish performance benchmarks for modern screening digital mammography and assess performance trends over time in U.S. community practice.
Materials and Methods
This HIPAA-compliant, institutional review board–approved study measured the performance of digital screening mammography interpreted by 359 radiologists across 95 facilities in six Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) registries. The study included 1 682 504 digital screening mammograms performed between 2007 and 2013 in 792 808 women. Performance measures were calculated according to the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, 5th edition, and were compared with published benchmarks by the BCSC, the National Mammography Database, and performance recommendations by expert opinion. Benchmarks were derived from the distribution of performance metrics across radiologists and were presented as 50th (median), 10th, 25th, 75th, and 90th percentiles, with graphic presentations using smoothed curves.
Mean screening performance measures were as follows: abnormal interpretation rate (AIR), 11.6 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 11.5, 11.6); cancers detected per 1000 screens, or cancer detection rate (CDR), 5.1 (95% CI: 5.0, 5.2); sensitivity, 86.9% (95% CI: 86.3%, 87.6%); specificity, 88.9% (95% CI: 88.8%, 88.9%); false-negative rate per 1000 screens, 0.8 (95% CI: 0.7, 0.8); positive predictive value (PPV) 1, 4.4% (95% CI: 4.3%, 4.5%); PPV2, 25.6% (95% CI: 25.1%, 26.1%); PPV3, 28.6% (95% CI: 28.0%, 29.3%); cancers stage 0 or 1, 76.9%; minimal cancers, 57.7%; and node-negative invasive cancers, 79.4%. Recommended CDRs were achieved by 92.1% of radiologists in community practice, and 97.1% achieved recommended ranges for sensitivity. Only 59.0% of radiologists achieved recommended AIRs, and only 63.0% achieved recommended levels of specificity.
The majority of radiologists in the BCSC surpass cancer detection recommendations for screening mammography; however, AIRs continue to be higher than the recommended rate for almost half of radiologists interpreting screening mammograms.
© RSNA, 2016
- 1. . Mammography as a screening examination in breast cancer. Radiology 1965;84:703–708. Link, Google Scholar
- 2. . The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Lancet 2012;380(9855):1778–1786. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
- 3. . Ten- to fourteen-year effect of screening on breast cancer mortality. J Natl Cancer Inst 1982;69(2):349–355. Medline, Google Scholar
- 4. . Mammographic breast cancer screening: a randomized trial in Malmö, Sweden. Maturitas 1985;7(1):21–29. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
- 5. . Reduction in mortality from breast cancer after mass screening with mammography: randomised trial from the Breast Cancer Screening Working Group of the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare. Lancet 1985;1(8433):829–832. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
- 6. . The Edinburgh randomised trial of screening for breast cancer: description of method. Br J Cancer 1984;50(1):1–6. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
- 7. . Randomized mammographic screening for breast cancer in Stockholm: design, first round results and comparisons. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1986;8(1):45–54. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
- 8. . The National Study of Breast Cancer Screening Protocol for a Canadian randomized controlled trial of screening for breast cancer in women. Clin Invest Med 1981;4(3-4):227–258. Medline, Google Scholar
- 9. . The Gothenburg breast screening trial: first results on mortality, incidence, and mode of detection for women ages 39-49 years at randomization. Cancer 1997;80(11):2091–2099. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
- 10. . Breast cancer screening for women at average risk: 2015 guideline update from the American Cancer Society. JAMA 2015;314(15):1599–1614. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
- 11. . US Preventive Services Task Force and breast cancer screening. JAMA 2010;303(2):172–173. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
- 12. . American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Atlas (BI-RADS Atlas). Reston, Va: American College of Radiology, 2013. Google Scholar
- 13. . Performance benchmarks for screening mammography. Radiology 2006;241(1):55–66. Link, Google Scholar
- 14. . Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Updated July 6, 2015. Accessed March 4, 2016. Google Scholar
- 15. . Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium: a national mammography screening and outcomes database. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997;169(4):1001–1008. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
- 16. . Performance Benchmarks for Screening Mammography (HHSN261201100031C). http://breastscreening.cancer.gov/statistics/benchmarks/screening/. Updated May 20, 2015. Accessed May 8, 2016. Google Scholar
- 17. . Using clinical factors and mammographic breast density to estimate breast cancer risk: development and validation of a new predictive model. Ann Intern Med 2008;148(5):337–347. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
- 18. . Comparative effectiveness of digital versus film-screen mammography in community practice in the United States: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med 2011;155(8):493–502. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
- 19. . Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2005;353(17):1773–1783. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
- 20. . The National Mammography Database: preliminary data. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2016;206(4):883–890. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
- 21. . Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology 2013;267(1):47–56. Link, Google Scholar
- 22. . Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. Lancet Oncol 2013;14(7):583–589. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
- 23. . Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. JAMA 2014;311(24):2499–2507. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
- 24. . Screening outcomes following implementation of digital breast tomosynthesis in a general-population screening program. J Natl Cancer Inst 2014;106(11):dju316. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
- 25. . Assessing radiologist performance using combined digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography alone: results of a multicenter, multireader trial. Radiology 2013;266(1):104–113. Link, Google Scholar
- 26. . Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;193(2):586–591. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
- 27. . Identifying minimally acceptable interpretive performance criteria for screening mammography. Radiology 2010;255(2):354–361. Link, Google Scholar
Article HistoryReceived May 20, 2016; revision requested July 25; revision received August 19; final version accepted August 29.
Published online: Dec 05 2016
Published in print: Apr 2017