"skipMainNavigation"
closeDrawerMenuopenDrawerMenu
Search
Quick Search in Journals
Quick Search anywhere
Advanced Search
Radiology
Menu
  • Information
    • Previous
    Next
    Original Research

    National Performance Benchmarks for Modern Screening Digital Mammography: Update from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium

    Published Online:Dec 5 2016https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2016161174

    Abstract

    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.

    Purpose

    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.

    Results

    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.

    Conclusion

    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

    Online supplemental material is available for this article.

    References

    • 1. Wolfe JN. Mammography as a screening examination in breast cancer. Radiology 1965;84:703–708. Link, Google Scholar
    • 2. Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening. The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Lancet 2012;380(9855):1778–1786. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 3. Shapiro S, Venet W, Strax P, Venet L, Roeser R. Ten- to fourteen-year effect of screening on breast cancer mortality. J Natl Cancer Inst 1982;69(2):349–355. Medline, Google Scholar
    • 4. Andersson I, Janzon L, Sigfússon BF. Mammographic breast cancer screening: a randomized trial in Malmö, Sweden. Maturitas 1985;7(1):21–29. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 5. Tabár L, Fagerberg CJ, Gad A, et al. 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. Roberts MM, Alexander FE, Anderson TJ, et al. 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. Frisell J, Glas U, Hellström L, Somell A. 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. Miller AB, Howe GR, Wall C. 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. Bjurstam N, Björneld L, Duffy SW, et al. 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. Oeffinger KC, Fontham ET, Etzioni R, et al. 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. DeAngelis CD, Fontanarosa PB. US Preventive Services Task Force and breast cancer screening. JAMA 2010;303(2):172–173. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 12. American College of Radiology. American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Atlas (BI-RADS Atlas). Reston, Va: American College of Radiology, 2013. Google Scholar
    • 13. Rosenberg RD, Yankaskas BC, Abraham LA, et al. Performance benchmarks for screening mammography. Radiology 2006;241(1):55–66. Link, Google Scholar
    • 14. National Cancer Institute DoCCPS, Healthcare Delivery Research Program. Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Updated July 6, 2015. Accessed March 4, 2016. Google Scholar
    • 15. Ballard-Barbash R, Taplin SH, Yankaskas BC, et al. 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. National Cancer Institute Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Performance Benchmarks for Screening Mammography (HHSN261201100031C). http://breastscreening.cancer.gov/statistics/benchmarks/screening/. Updated May 20, 2015. Accessed May 8, 2016. Google Scholar
    • 17. Tice JA, Cummings SR, Smith-Bindman R, Ichikawa L, Barlow WE, Kerlikowske K. 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. Kerlikowske K, Hubbard RA, Miglioretti DL, et al. 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. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, et al. 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. Lee CS, Bhargavan-Chatfield M, Burnside ES, Nagy P, Sickles EA. The National Mammography Database: preliminary data. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2016;206(4):883–890. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 21. Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R, et al. 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. Ciatto S, Houssami N, Bernardi D, et al. 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. Friedewald SM, Rafferty EA, Rose SL, et al. Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. JAMA 2014;311(24):2499–2507. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 24. McCarthy AM, Kontos D, Synnestvedt M, et al. 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. Rafferty EA, Park JM, Philpotts LE, et al. 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. Gur D, Abrams GS, Chough DM, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;193(2):586–591. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 27. Carney PA, Sickles EA, Monsees BS, et al. Identifying minimally acceptable interpretive performance criteria for screening mammography. Radiology 2010;255(2):354–361. Link, Google Scholar

    Article History

    Received 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