This study by Lehman et al. (Radiology, 2016) aimed to establish actual performance benchmarks for screening digital mammography among practicing radiologists as well as determine the performance characteristics.
Retrospective Cohort Study
1,682,504 digital screening mammograms of 729,808 women were interpreted by 359 radiologists. Performance measures were calculated using the American College of Radiology BI-RADS atlas (5th ed.) to standardize interpretation and then the calls made by radiologists were compared to published, recommended benchmarks by the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC), the National Mammography Database, and recommendations by experts. The vast majority of radiologists in community practice (92.1%) met or exceeded standards for cancer detection rates and similarly, there was a very high percentage of radiologists (97.1%) who met recommended ranges for sensitivity. However, only 59.0% met standards for abnormal interpretation rates and 64.3% for specificity. The authors conclude that radiologists are overall meeting standards when it comes to not missing cancers. However, a large number of radiologists are “overcalling” mammograms. This issue has raised previously and remains an ongoing focus area for quality assurance and improvement.
Please log in to ObGFirst to access the 2T US Atlas
OBG Project CME requires a modern web browser (Internet Explorer 10+, Mozilla Firefox, Apple Safari, Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge). Certain educational activities may require additional software to view multimedia, presentation, or printable versions of their content. These activities will be marked as such and will provide links to the required software. That software may be: Adobe Flash, Apple QuickTime, Adobe Acrobat, Microsoft PowerPoint, Windows Media Player, or Real Networks Real One Player.
This educational activity may contain discussion of published and/or investigational uses of agents that are not indicated by the FDA. The planners of this activity do not recommend the use of any agent outside of the labeled indications.
The opinions expressed in the educational activity are those of the faculty and do not necessarily represent the views of the planners. Please refer to the official prescribing information for each product for discussion of approved indications, contraindications, and warnings.
Participants have an implied responsibility to use the newly acquired information to enhance patient outcomes and their own professional development. The information
presented in this activity is not meant to serve as a guideline for patient management. Any procedures, medications, or other courses of diagnosis or treatment discussed or suggested in this activity should not be used by clinicians without evaluation of their patient’s conditions and possible contraindications and/or dangers in use, review of any applicable manufacturer’s product information, and comparison with recommendations of other authorities.
Jointly provided by
