Abstract
To examine reader characteristics associated with diagnostic efficacy in the interpretation
of screening mammograms. A systematic search of the literature was conducted using
databases such as Cochrane, Scopus, Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and PubMed. Search
terms were combined with “AND” or “OR” and included: “Radiologist's characteristics
AND performance”; “radiologist experience AND screening mammography”; “annual volume
read AND diagnostic efficacy”; “screening mammography performance OR diagnostic efficacy”.
Studies were included if they assessed reader performance in screening mammography
interpretation, breast readers, used a reference standard to assess the performance,
and were published in the English language. Twenty-eight studies were reviewed. Increasing
reader's age was associated with lower false positive rates. No association was found
between gender and performance. Half of the studies showed no association between
years of reading mammograms and performance. Most studies showed that high reading
volume was more likely to be associated with increased sensitivity, cancer detection
rates (CDR), lower recall rate, and lower false positive rates. Inconsistent associations
were found between fellowship training in breast imaging and reader performance. Specialization
in breast imaging was associated with better CDR, sensitivity, and specificity. Limited
studies were available to establish the association between performance and factors
such as time spent in breast imaging (n = 2), screening focus (n = 1), formal rotation
in mammography (n = 1), owner of practice (n = 1), and practice type (n = 1). No individual
characteristics is associated with versatility in diagnostic efficacy, albeit reading
volume and specialization in breast imaging appear to be associated with with increased
sensitivity and CDR without significantly affecting other performance metrics.
Keywords
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Clinical Breast CancerAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012.Int J Cancer. 2015; 136: E359-E386
- The global burden of cancer 2013.JAMA Oncol. 2015; 1: 505-527
- Errors in mammography cannot be solved through technology alone.Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2018; 19: 291-301
- Analysis of perceptual expertise in radiology - current knowledge and a new perspective.Front Hum Neurosci. 2019; 13: 213
- Understanding and confronting our mistakes: the epidemiology of error in radiology and strategies for error reduction.Radiographics. 2015; 35: 1668-1676
- International evaluation of an AI system for breast cancer screening.Nature. 2020; 577: 89-94
- Diagnostic accuracy of digital screening mammography with and without computer-aided detection.JAMA Intern Med. 2015; 175: 1828-1837
- Single reading with computer-aided detection performed by selected radiologists in a breast cancer screening program.Eur J Radiol. 2014; 83: 2019-2023
- Impact of computer-aided detection systems on radiologist accuracy with digital mammography.Am J Roentgenol. 2014; 203: 909-916
- Benefits of independent double reading in digital mammography: a theoretical evaluation of all possible pairing methodologies.Acad Radiol. 2018; 26: 717-723
- Introduction of additional double reading of mammograms by radiographers: effects on a biennial screening programme outcome.Eur J Cancer. 2008; 44: 1223-1228
- Audit feedback on reading performance of screening mammograms: an international comparison.J med screening. 2016; 23: 150-159
- Quality assurance guidelines for radiologists.NHS Breast Screening Programme, 1997
- European guidelines for quality assurance in mammography screening.Office for official publications of the European Communities, 2001
- National Programme for the Early Detection of Breast Cancer. National Accreditation Requirements: March, 1994.Australian Commonwealth Department of Human Services and Health, Canberra1994
- Radiologist characteristics associated with interpretive performance of diagnostic mammography.J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007; 99: 1854-1863
- Association of volume-independent factors with accuracy in screening mammogram interpretation.J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003; 95: 282-290
- Interpretive performance and inter-observer agreement on digital mammography test sets.Korean J Radiol. 2019; 20: 218-224
- Malignancy detection in digital mammograms. Important reader characteristics and required case numbers.Acad Radiol. 2010; 17: 1409-1413
- Variability in interpretive performance at screening mammography and radiologists' characteristics associated with accuracy.Radiology. 2009; 253: 641-651
- When radiologists perform best: the learning curve in screening mammogram interpretation.Radiology. 2009; 253: 632-640
- Performance assessment for radiologists interpreting screening mammography.Stat Med. 2007; 26: 1532-1551
- Patient and radiologist characteristics associated with accuracy of two types of diagnostic mammograms.AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015; 205: 456-463
- Preferred reporting items for a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies: the PRISMA-DTA statement.JAMA. 2018; 319: 388-396
- QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies.Ann Intern Med. 2011; 155: 529-536
- Screening mammograms by community radiologists: variability in false-positive rates.JNCI. 2002; 94: 1373-1380
- Variation in false-positive rates of mammography reading among 1067 radiologists: a population-based assessment.Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2006; 100: 309-318
- Accuracy of screening mammography interpretation by characteristics of radiologists.J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004; 96: 1840-1850
- Association between radiologists' experience and accuracy in interpreting screening mammograms.BMC Health Serv Res. 2008; 8: 91
- Malignancy detection in digital mammograms: important reader characteristics and required case numbers.Acad Radiol. 2010; 17: 1409-1413
- Radiologists' interpretive skills in screening vs. diagnostic mammography: are they related?.Clin imaging. 2016; 40: 1096-1103
- Variability in interpretive performance at screening mammography and radiologists' characteristics associated with accuracy.Radiology. 2009; 253: 641-651
- Volume of screening mammography and performance in the Quebec population-based breast cancer screening program.CMAJ. 2005; 172: 195-199
- Radiologist uncertainty and the interpretation of screening.Med Decis Making. 2004; 24: 255-264
- Association of volume and volume-independent factors with accuracy in screening mammogram interpretation.J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003; 95: 282-290
- Markers of good performance in mammography depend on number of annual readings.Radiology. 2013; 269: 61-67
- Cancer detection and mammogram volume of radiologists in a population-based screening programme.Breast. 2006; 15: 39-43
- Radiologist characteristics associated with interpretive performance of diagnostic mammography.J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007; 99: 1854-1863
- Optimal screening mammography reading volumes; evidence from real life in the East Midlands region of the NHS breast screening programme.Clin Radiol. 2011; 66: 103-107
- Number of mammography cases read per year is a strong predictor of sensitivity.J Med Imaging. 2014; 1015503
- Radiologist interpretive volume and breast cancer screening accuracy in a Canadian organized screening program.J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014; 106: djt461
- Effect of radiologists' diagnostic work-up volume on interpretive performance.Radiology. 2014; 273: 351-364
- Proficiency test for screening mammography: results for 117 volunteer Italian radiologists.J Med Screen. 1999; 6: 149-151
- Improving the accuracy of mammography: volume and outcome relationships.JNCI. 2002; 94: 369-375
- Addressing the challenge of assessing physician-level screening performance: mammography as an example.PLoS One. 2014; 9: e89418
- Standardized abnormal interpretation and cancer detection ratios to assess reading volume and reader performance in a breast screening program.Radiology. 2000; 215: 563-567
- Influence of mammography volume on radiologists' performance: results from breast screen Norway.Radiology. 2019; 292: 289-296
- Influence of annual interpretive volume on screening mammography performance in the United States.Radiology. 2011; 259: 72-84
- Performance parameters for screening and diagnostic mammography: specialist and general radiologists.Radiology. 2002; 224: 861-869
- Mammography facility characteristics associated with interpretive accuracy of screening mammography.J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008; 100: 876-887
- Is confidence of mammographic assessment a good predictor of accuracy?.AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012; 199: W134-W141
- Performance assessment for radiologists interpreting screening mammography.Stat Med. 2007; 26: 1532-1551
- Does diagnostic accuracy in mammography depend on radiologists' experience?.J Womens Health. 1998; 7: 443-449
- Accuracy of screening mammography interpretation by characteristics of radiologists.J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004; 96: 1840-1850
Suleiman WI, Lewis SJ, Georgian-Smith D, et al. Number of mammography cases read per year is a strong predictor of sensitivity. J Medic Imaging. 2014;1: 015501-015503-6.
- Does diagnostic accuracy in mammography depend on radiologists' experience?.J Womens Health. 1998; 7: 443-449
- Proficiency test for screening mammography: results for 117 volunteer Italian radiologists.J Med Screen. 1999; 6: 149-151
- Breast screening: PERFORMS identifies key mammographic training needs.Br J Radiol. 2006; 79: S127-S133
- A review of decision-making processes: weighing the risks and benefits of aging.in: Carstensen LL Hartel CR When I'm 64. National Research Council (US) Committee on Aging Frontiers in Social Psychology, Personality, and Adult Developmental Psychology. National Academies Press, Washington, DC2006 (eds.)
- Association between radiologists' experience and accuracy in interpreting screening mammograms.BMC Health Serv Res. 2008; 8
- Impact of Breast Reader Assessment Strategy on mammographic radiologists' test reading performance.J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2016; 60: 352-358
- The prevalence effect in a laboratory environment: changing the confidence ratings.Acad Radiol. 2007; 14: 49-53
- Performance parameters for screening and diagnostic mammography in a community practice: are there differences between specialists and general radiologists?.AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007; 188: 236-241
Article info
Publication history
Published online: January 25, 2023
Accepted:
January 21,
2023
Received in revised form:
January 10,
2023
Received:
April 5,
2022
Identification
Copyright
© 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
