Physician predictors of mammographic accuracy

被引:115
作者
Smith-Bindman, R
Chu, P
Miglioretti, DL
Quale, C
Rosenberg, RD
Cutter, G
Geller, B
Bacchetti, P
Sickles, EA
Kerlikowske, K
机构
[1] Univ Calif San Francisco, Dept Radiol, San Francisco, CA 94115 USA
[2] Univ Calif San Francisco, Dept Epidemiol & Biostat, San Francisco, CA 94115 USA
[3] Univ Washington, Ctr Hlth Studies, Grp Hlth Cooperat, Seattle, WA 98195 USA
[4] Univ Washington, Dept Biostat, Seattle, WA 98195 USA
[5] Univ New Mexico, Dept Radiol, Albuquerque, NM 87131 USA
[6] Univ Nevada, Sch Med, Ctr Res Design & Stat Methods, Appl Res Facil, Reno, NV 89557 USA
[7] Univ Vermont, Coll Med, Burlington, VT USA
[8] Univ Calif San Francisco, Gen Internal Med Sect, Dept Vet Affairs, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA
来源
JNCI-JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE | 2005年 / 97卷 / 05期
关键词
D O I
10.1093/jnci/dji060
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Background. The association between physician experience and the accuracy of screening mammography in community practice is not well studied. We identified characteristics of U.S. physicians associated with the accuracy of screening mammography. Methods: Data were obtained from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium and the American Medical Association Master File. Unadjusted mammography sensitivity and specificity were calculated according to physician characteristics. We modeled mammography sensitivity and specificity by multivariable logistic regression as a function of patient and physician characteristics. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: We studied 209 physicians who interpreted 1220 046 screening mammograms from January 1, 1995, through December 31, 2000, of which 7143 (5.9 per 1000 mammograms) were associated with breast cancer within 12 months of screening. Each physician interpreted a mean of 6011 screening mammograms (95% confidence interval [CI] = 4998 to 6677), including a mean of 34 (95% Cl = 28 to 40) from women diagnosed with breast cancer. The mean sensitivity was 77%. (range = 29%-97%), and the mean false-positive rate was 10%, (range = 1%-29%). After adjustment for the patient characteristics of those whose mammograms they interpreted, physician characteristics were strongly associated with specificity. Higher specificity was associated with at least 25 years (versus less than 10 years) since receipt of a medical degree (for physicians practicing for 2529 years, odds ratio [OR] = 1.54, 95% CI = 1.14 to 2.08; P =.006), interpretation of 2500-4000 (versus 481-750) screening mammograms annually (OR= 1.30, 95% CI = 1.06 to 1.59; P =.011) and a high focus on screening mammography compared with diagnostic mammography (OR = 1.59, 95% CI = 1.37 to 1.82; P<.001). Higher overall accuracy was associated with more experience and with a higher focus on screening mammography. Compared with physicians who interpret 481-750 mammograms annually and had a low screening focus, physicians who interpret 2500-4000 mammograms annually and had a high screening focus had approximately 50% fewer false-positive examinations and detected a few less cancers. Conclusion: Raising the annual volume requirements in the Mammography Quality Standards Act might improve the overall quality of screening mammography in the United States.
引用
收藏
页码:358 / 367
页数:10
相关论文
共 34 条
  • [1] [Anonymous], BREAST IM REP DAT SY
  • [2] Breast cancer surveillance consortium: A national mammography screening and outcomes database
    BallardBarbash, R
    Taplin, SH
    Yankaskas, BC
    Ernster, VL
    Rosenberg, RD
    Carney, PA
    Barlow, WE
    Geller, BM
    Kerlikowske, K
    Edwards, BK
    Lynch, CF
    Urban, N
    Key, CR
    Poplack, SP
    Worden, JK
    Kessler, LG
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 1997, 169 (04) : 1001 - 1008
  • [3] Accuracy of screening mammography interpretation by characteristics of radiologists
    Barlow, WE
    Chi, C
    Carney, PA
    Taplin, SH
    D'Orsi, C
    Cutter, G
    Hendrick, RE
    Elmore, JG
    [J]. JNCI-JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 2004, 96 (24): : 1840 - 1850
  • [4] Barlow WE, 2002, J NATL CANCER I, V94, P1151
  • [5] Association of volume and volume-independent factors with accuracy in screening mammogram interpretation
    Beam, CA
    Conant, EF
    Sickles, EA
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 2003, 95 (04) : 282 - 290
  • [6] Variability in the interpretation of screening mammograms by US radiologists - Findings from a national sample
    Beam, CA
    Layde, PM
    Sullivan, DC
    [J]. ARCHIVES OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 1996, 156 (02) : 209 - 213
  • [7] Carney PA, 2003, ANN INTERN MED, V138, P168, DOI 10.7326/0003-4819-138-3-200302040-00008
  • [8] *DEP HLTH, 2000, STAT B
  • [9] Context bias - A problem in diagnostic radiology
    Egglin, TKP
    Feinstein, AR
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1996, 276 (21): : 1752 - 1755
  • [10] The impact of clinical history on mammographic interpretations
    Elmore, JG
    Wells, CK
    Howard, DH
    Feinstein, AR
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1997, 277 (01): : 49 - 52