Variation in false-positive rates of mammography reading among 1067 radiologists

A population-based assessment

Alai Tan, Daniel H. Freeman, James Goodwin, Jean L. Freeman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

26 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: The accuracy of mammography reading varies among radiologists. We conducted a population-based assessment on radiologist variation in false- positive rates of screening mammography and its associated radiologist characteristics. Methods: About 27,394 screening mammograms interpreted by 1067 radiologists were identified from a 5% non-cancer sample of Medicare claims during 1998-1999. The data were linked to the American Medical Association Masterfile to obtain radiologist characteristics. Multilevel logistic regression models were used to examine the radiologist variation in false-positive rates of screening mammography and the associated radiologist characteristics. Results: Radiologists varied substantially in the false-positive rates of screening mammography (ranging from 1.5 to 24.1%, adjusting for patient characteristics). A longer time period since graduation is associated with lower false-positive rates (odds ratio [OR] for every 10 years increase: 0.87, 95% Confidence Interval [CI], 0.81-0.94) and female radiologists had higher false-positive rates than male radiologists (OR = 1.25, 95% CI, 1.05-1.49), adjusting for patient and other radiologist characteristics. The unmeasured factors contributed to about 90% of the between-radiologist variance. Conclusions: Radiologists varied greatly in accuracy of mammography reading. Female and more recently trained radiologists had higher false-positive rates. The variation among radiologists was largely due to unmeasured factors, especially unmeasured radiologist factors. If our results are confirmed in further studies, they suggest that system-level interventions would be required to reduce variation in mammography interpretation.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)309-318
Number of pages10
JournalBreast Cancer Research and Treatment
Volume100
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 2006

Fingerprint

Mammography
Reading
Population
Radiologists
Logistic Models
Odds Ratio
Confidence Intervals
American Medical Association
Medicare

Keywords

  • False-positive
  • Mammography
  • Medicare claims
  • Older women

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Cancer Research

Cite this

Variation in false-positive rates of mammography reading among 1067 radiologists : A population-based assessment. / Tan, Alai; Freeman, Daniel H.; Goodwin, James; Freeman, Jean L.

In: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, Vol. 100, No. 3, 12.2006, p. 309-318.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{77fc658c96e14e81bbf23b2d2c917e68,
title = "Variation in false-positive rates of mammography reading among 1067 radiologists: A population-based assessment",
abstract = "Background: The accuracy of mammography reading varies among radiologists. We conducted a population-based assessment on radiologist variation in false- positive rates of screening mammography and its associated radiologist characteristics. Methods: About 27,394 screening mammograms interpreted by 1067 radiologists were identified from a 5{\%} non-cancer sample of Medicare claims during 1998-1999. The data were linked to the American Medical Association Masterfile to obtain radiologist characteristics. Multilevel logistic regression models were used to examine the radiologist variation in false-positive rates of screening mammography and the associated radiologist characteristics. Results: Radiologists varied substantially in the false-positive rates of screening mammography (ranging from 1.5 to 24.1{\%}, adjusting for patient characteristics). A longer time period since graduation is associated with lower false-positive rates (odds ratio [OR] for every 10 years increase: 0.87, 95{\%} Confidence Interval [CI], 0.81-0.94) and female radiologists had higher false-positive rates than male radiologists (OR = 1.25, 95{\%} CI, 1.05-1.49), adjusting for patient and other radiologist characteristics. The unmeasured factors contributed to about 90{\%} of the between-radiologist variance. Conclusions: Radiologists varied greatly in accuracy of mammography reading. Female and more recently trained radiologists had higher false-positive rates. The variation among radiologists was largely due to unmeasured factors, especially unmeasured radiologist factors. If our results are confirmed in further studies, they suggest that system-level interventions would be required to reduce variation in mammography interpretation.",
keywords = "False-positive, Mammography, Medicare claims, Older women",
author = "Alai Tan and Freeman, {Daniel H.} and James Goodwin and Freeman, {Jean L.}",
year = "2006",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1007/s10549-006-9252-6",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "100",
pages = "309--318",
journal = "Breast Cancer Research and Treatment",
issn = "0167-6806",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Variation in false-positive rates of mammography reading among 1067 radiologists

T2 - A population-based assessment

AU - Tan, Alai

AU - Freeman, Daniel H.

AU - Goodwin, James

AU - Freeman, Jean L.

PY - 2006/12

Y1 - 2006/12

N2 - Background: The accuracy of mammography reading varies among radiologists. We conducted a population-based assessment on radiologist variation in false- positive rates of screening mammography and its associated radiologist characteristics. Methods: About 27,394 screening mammograms interpreted by 1067 radiologists were identified from a 5% non-cancer sample of Medicare claims during 1998-1999. The data were linked to the American Medical Association Masterfile to obtain radiologist characteristics. Multilevel logistic regression models were used to examine the radiologist variation in false-positive rates of screening mammography and the associated radiologist characteristics. Results: Radiologists varied substantially in the false-positive rates of screening mammography (ranging from 1.5 to 24.1%, adjusting for patient characteristics). A longer time period since graduation is associated with lower false-positive rates (odds ratio [OR] for every 10 years increase: 0.87, 95% Confidence Interval [CI], 0.81-0.94) and female radiologists had higher false-positive rates than male radiologists (OR = 1.25, 95% CI, 1.05-1.49), adjusting for patient and other radiologist characteristics. The unmeasured factors contributed to about 90% of the between-radiologist variance. Conclusions: Radiologists varied greatly in accuracy of mammography reading. Female and more recently trained radiologists had higher false-positive rates. The variation among radiologists was largely due to unmeasured factors, especially unmeasured radiologist factors. If our results are confirmed in further studies, they suggest that system-level interventions would be required to reduce variation in mammography interpretation.

AB - Background: The accuracy of mammography reading varies among radiologists. We conducted a population-based assessment on radiologist variation in false- positive rates of screening mammography and its associated radiologist characteristics. Methods: About 27,394 screening mammograms interpreted by 1067 radiologists were identified from a 5% non-cancer sample of Medicare claims during 1998-1999. The data were linked to the American Medical Association Masterfile to obtain radiologist characteristics. Multilevel logistic regression models were used to examine the radiologist variation in false-positive rates of screening mammography and the associated radiologist characteristics. Results: Radiologists varied substantially in the false-positive rates of screening mammography (ranging from 1.5 to 24.1%, adjusting for patient characteristics). A longer time period since graduation is associated with lower false-positive rates (odds ratio [OR] for every 10 years increase: 0.87, 95% Confidence Interval [CI], 0.81-0.94) and female radiologists had higher false-positive rates than male radiologists (OR = 1.25, 95% CI, 1.05-1.49), adjusting for patient and other radiologist characteristics. The unmeasured factors contributed to about 90% of the between-radiologist variance. Conclusions: Radiologists varied greatly in accuracy of mammography reading. Female and more recently trained radiologists had higher false-positive rates. The variation among radiologists was largely due to unmeasured factors, especially unmeasured radiologist factors. If our results are confirmed in further studies, they suggest that system-level interventions would be required to reduce variation in mammography interpretation.

KW - False-positive

KW - Mammography

KW - Medicare claims

KW - Older women

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33750716837&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33750716837&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s10549-006-9252-6

DO - 10.1007/s10549-006-9252-6

M3 - Article

VL - 100

SP - 309

EP - 318

JO - Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

JF - Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

SN - 0167-6806

IS - 3

ER -