Organized Breast Screening Programs in Canada: Effect of Radiologist Reading Volumes on Outcomes

Published Online:Mar 1 2006https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2382041684

Abstract

Purpose: To examine retrospectively the relationship between radiologist screening program reading volumes and interpretation results.

Materials and Methods: This research project was reviewed by the University of British Columbia Research Ethics Board. Informed patient consent was not required. Data were requested from Canadian provincial screening programs for the period 1988–2000. Cancer detection rates, abnormal interpretation rates, and positive predictive values (PPVs) were calculated for individual radiologists in those programs. Multivariate Poisson mixed regression models were used to examine the effect of patient age, screening examination sequence (first or subsequent screening examination), province, radiologist reading volume, and interradiologist differences on cancer detection rate, abnormal interpretation rate, and PPV.

Results: The results of the interpretation of 1406678 screening mammograms by 304 radiologists from seven provincial programs were analyzed. Cancer detection rate, abnormal interpretation rate, and PPV all varied according to age of woman screened and screening sequence and across the sample of radiologists. None of the rates varied by province. Neither the cancer detection rate nor the abnormal interpretation rate varied by reading volume, but the average PPV was increased by 34% for volumes over 2000 mammograms versus volumes of 480–699 mammograms per year. There was no evidence that the magnitude of variability around the average, for radiologists reading the same volume of mammograms, varied across different volume groups for any of the outcome measures.

Conclusion: Cancer detection did not vary with reading volume. The average PPV for individual radiologists increased as reading volume rose up to 2000 mammograms per year; it stabilized at higher volumes.

References

1 Vainio H, Bianchini F, eds. Breast cancer screening. In: Vainio H, ed. IARC handbooks of cancer prevention. Vol 7. Lyon, France: IARCPress, 2002.
Google Scholar
2 Sickles EA, Wolverton DE, Dee KE. Performance parameters for screening and diagnostic mammography: specialist and general radiologists. Radiology 2002; 224(3): 861–869.
Google Scholar
3 Commonwealth Department of Human Services and Health. National program for the early detection of breast cancer: national accreditation requirements. Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth Department of Human Services and Health, 1994.
Google Scholar
4 Smith-Bindman R, Chu PW, Miglioretti DL, et al. Comparison of screening mammography in the United States and the United Kingdom. JAMA 2003;290(16):2129–2137. [Published correction appears in JAMA 2004;291(7):824.]
Google Scholar
5 Esserman L, Cowley H, Eberle C, et al. Improving the accuracy of mammography: volume and outcome relationships. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94(5):369–375.
Medline Google Scholar
6 Kan L, Olivotto IA, Warren Burhenne LJ, Sickles EA, Coldman AJ. Standardized abnormal interpretation and cancer detection ratios to assess reading volume and reader performance in a breast screening program. Radiology 2000;215(2):563–567.
Google Scholar
7 Beam CA, Conant EF, Sickles EA. Association of volume and volume-independent factors with accuracy in screening mammogram interpretation. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;95(4):282–290.
Medline Google Scholar
8 McKee MD, Cropp MD, Hyland A, Watroba N, McKinley B, Edge SB. Provider case volume and outcome in the evaluation and treatment of patients with mammogram-detected breast carcinoma. Cancer 2002;95(4):704–712.
Google Scholar
9 Rutter CM, Taplin S. Assessing mammographers' accuracy. A comparison of clinical and test performance. J Clin Epidemiol 2000;53(5):443–450.
Medline Google Scholar
10 Shapiro S, Coleman EA, Broeders M, et al. Breast cancer screening programmes in 22 countries: current policies, administration and guidelines. International Breast Cancer Screening Network (IBSN) and the European Network of Pilot Projects for Breast Cancer Screening. Int J Epidemiol 1998;27(5):735–742.
Medline Google Scholar
11 Paquette D, Snider J, Bouchard F, et al. Performance of screening mammography in organized programs in Canada in 1996. The Database Management Subcommittee to the National Committee for the Canadian Breast Cancer Screening Initiative. CMAJ 2000;163(9):1133–1138.
Medline Google Scholar
12 Health Canada. Organized breast screening programs in Canada: 1999 and 2000 report. Ottawa, Canada: Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, 2003.
Google Scholar
13 Congdon P. Bayesian statistical modelling. New York, NY: J Wiley, 2001.
Google Scholar
14 Spiegelhalter D, Thomas A, Best N. WinBUGS version 1.2 user manual. Cambridge, England: Medical Research Council Biostatistics Unit, 1999.
Google Scholar
15 Christiansen CL, Wang F, Barton MB, et al. Predicting the cumulative risk of false-positive mammograms. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92(20):1657–1666.
Medline Google Scholar
16 Nodine CF, Kundel HL, Lauver SC, Toto LC. Nature of expertise in searching mammograms for breast masses. Acad Radiol 1996;3(12):1000–1006.
Medline Google Scholar
17 Nodine CF, Kundel HL, Mello-Thoms C, et al. How experience and training influence mammography expertise. Acad Radiol 1999;6(10):575–585.
Medline Google Scholar
18 Elmore JG, Wells CK, Howard DH. Does diagnostic accuracy in mammography depend on radiologists' experience? J Womens Health 1998;7(4):443–449.
Medline Google Scholar
19 Elmore JG, Nakano CY, Koepsell TD, Desnick LM, D'Orsi CJ, Ransohoff DF. International variation in screening mammography interpretations in community-based programs. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;95(18):1384–1393.
Medline Google Scholar
20 Egglin TK, Feinstein AR. Context bias: a problem in diagnostic radiology. JAMA 1996;276(21):1752–1755.
Medline Google Scholar

Article History

Published in print: 2006

Vol. 238, No. 3

Metrics

Altmetric Score

PDF download