Effect of Radiologists’ Diagnostic Work-up Volume on Interpretive Performance

Abstract

Purpose:To examine radiologists' screening performance in relation to the number of diagnostic work-ups performed after abnormal findings are discovered at screening mammography by the same radiologist or by different radiologists. Materials andMethods:In an institutional review board-approved HIPAA-compliant study, the authors linked 651 671 screening mammograms interpreted from 2002 to 2006 by 96 radiologists in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium to cancer registries (standard of reference) to evaluate the performance of screening mammography (sensitivity, false-positive rate [FPR], and cancer detection rate [CDR]). Logistic regression was used to assess the association between the volume of recalled screening mammograms ("own" mammograms, where the radiologist who interpreted the diagnostic image was the same radiologist who had interpreted the screening image, and "any" mammograms, where the radiologist who interpreted the diagnostic image may or may not have been the radiologist who interpreted the screening image) and screening performance and whether the association between total annual volume and performance differed according to the volume of diagnostic work-up. Results:Annually, 38% of radiologists performed the diagnostic work-up for 25 or fewer of their own recalled screening mammograms, 24% performed the work-up for 0-50, and 39% performed the work-up for more than 50. For the work-up of recalled screening mammograms from any radiologist, 24% of radiologists performed the work-up for 0-50 mammograms, 32% performed the work-up for 51-125, and 44% performed the work-up for more than 125. With increasing numbers of radiologist workups for their own recalled mammograms, the sensitivity (P = .039), FPR (P = .004), and CDR (P , .001) of screening mammography increased, yielding a stepped increase in women recalled per cancer detected from 17.4 for 25 or fewer mammograms to 24.6 for more than 50 mammograms. Increases in work-ups for any radiologist yielded significant increases in FPR (P = .011) and CDR (P = .001) and a nonsignificant increase in sensitivity (P = .15). Radiologists with a lower annual volume of any work-ups had consistently lower FPR, sensitivity, and CDR at all annual interpretive volumes. Conclusion:These findings support the hypothesis that radiologists may improve their screening performance by performing the diagnostic work-up for their own recalled screening mammograms and directly receiving feedback afforded by means of the outcomes associated with their initial decision to recall. Arranging for radiologists to work up a minimum number of their own recalled cases could improve screening performance but would need systems to facilitate this workflow.q RSNA, 2014

Breast Cancer Screening for Women at Average Risk

“…There is too much variability in the sensitivity and specificity of mammography, which could be improved with better training, stronger qualifying standards, continuing education, and regular feedback on performance. 117,118 Improved accuracy (both sensitivity and specificity) would contribute to increased benefits and reduced harms.…”

Radiologists' interpretive skills in screening vs. diagnostic mammography: are they related?

“…[21, 25] Indeed, increasing the minimum interpretive volume requirements while adding a minimum requirement for diagnostic interpretation has been suggested to reduce the number of false-positive work-ups without hindering cancer detection. [21, 26, 27]…”

“…Our study also did not evaluate physician performance on diagnostic examinations obtained as a result of abnormal screening, and it is possible that an association might have been noted between performance on screening mammography and this narrower type of diagnostic mammography examination. [27]…”

A blueprint for cancer screening and early detection: Advancing screening’s contribution to cancer control

“…Mean screening performance measures were estimated for the recall rate (11.6%), the cancer detection rate per 1000 screening examinations (5.1), sensitivity (86.9%), and specificity (88.9%). Although 92% of radiologists were within the recommended ranges for sensitivity, only 63% achieved the recommended levels of specificity . The sensitivity and specificity of mammography are improved if prior studies are available to the interpreting physician .…”