» Articles » PMID: 12202726

Performance Parameters for Screening and Diagnostic Mammography: Specialist and General Radiologists

Overview
Journal Radiology
Specialty Radiology
Date 2002 Aug 31
PMID 12202726
Citations 67
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate performance parameters for radiologists in a practice of breast imaging specialists and general diagnostic radiologists who interpret a large series of consecutive screening and diagnostic mammographic studies.

Materials And Methods: Data (ie, patient age; family history of breast cancer; availability of previous mammograms for comparison; and abnormal interpretation, cancer detection, and stage 0-I cancer detection rates) were derived from review of mammographic studies obtained from January 1997 through August 2001. The breast imaging specialists have substantially more initial training in mammography and at least six times more continuing education in mammography, and they interpret 10 times more mammographic studies per year than the general radiologists. Differences between specialist and general radiologist performances at both screening and diagnostic examinations were assessed for significance by using Student t and chi(2) tests.

Results: The study involved 47,798 screening and 13,286 diagnostic mammographic examinations. Abnormal interpretation rates for screening mammography (ie, recall rate) were 4.9% for specialists and 7.1% for generalists (P <.001); and for diagnostic mammography (ie, recommended biopsy rate), 15.8% and 9.9%, respectively (P <.001). Cancer detection rates at screening mammography were 6.0 cancer cases per 1,000 examinations for specialists and 3.4 per 1,000 for generalists (P =.007); and at diagnostic mammography, 59.0 per 1,000 and 36.6 per 1,000, respectively (P <.001). Stage 0-I cancer detection rates at screening mammography were 5.3 cancer cases per 1,000 examinations for specialists and 3.0 per 1,000 for generalists (P =.012); and at diagnostic mammography, 43.9 per 1,000 and 27.0 per 1,000, respectively (P <.001).

Conclusion: Specialist radiologists detect more cancers and more early-stage cancers, recommend more biopsies, and have lower recall rates than general radiologists.

Citing Articles

Artificial intelligence versus radiologists in detecting early-stage breast cancer from mammograms: a meta-analysis of paradigm shifts.

Hashim H, Alhatemi A, Daraghma M, Ali H, Khan M, Sulaiman F Pol J Radiol. 2025; 90:e1-e8.

PMID: 40070418 PMC: 11891547. DOI: 10.5114/pjr/195520.


Artificial intelligence for breast cancer screening in mammography (AI-STREAM): preliminary analysis of a prospective multicenter cohort study.

Chang Y, Ryu J, An J, Choi N, Park Y, Ko K Nat Commun. 2025; 16(1):2248.

PMID: 40050619 PMC: 11885569. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-025-57469-3.


Misdiagnosis in breast imaging: a statement paper from European Society Breast Imaging (EUSOBI)-Part 1: The role of common errors in radiology in missed breast cancer and implications of misdiagnosis.

Thomassin-Naggara I, Kilburn-Toppin F, Athanasiou A, Forrai G, Ispas M, Lesaru M Eur Radiol. 2024; .

PMID: 39545978 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-024-11128-1.


Impact of a Categorical AI System for Digital Breast Tomosynthesis on Breast Cancer Interpretation by Both General Radiologists and Breast Imaging Specialists.

Kim J, Haslam B, Diab A, Sakhare A, Grisot G, Lee H Radiol Artif Intell. 2024; 6(2):e230137.

PMID: 38323914 PMC: 10982824. DOI: 10.1148/ryai.230137.


Identifying Frequently Endorsed Benefits and Barriers to Breast Cancer Screening for African-Born Women in the NYC Metropolitan Area: a Pilot Study.

Savage L, Minardi F, Miller S, Jandorf L, Erblich J, Margolies L J Racial Ethn Health Disparities. 2023; 12(1):212-221.

PMID: 38082068 PMC: 11322984. DOI: 10.1007/s40615-023-01865-2.