Rate and Timeliness of Diagnostic Evaluation and Biopsy After Recall From Screening Mammography in the National Mammography Database.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the rate and timeliness of diagnostic resolution after an abnormal screening mammogram in the ACR's National Mammography Database. METHODS: Abnormal screening mammograms (BI-RADS 0 assessment) in the National Mammography Database from January 1, 2008, to December 31, 2021, were retrospectively identified. The rates and timeliness of follow-up with diagnostic evaluation and biopsy were assessed and compared across patient and facility demographics. RESULTS: Among the 2,874,310 screening mammograms reported as abnormal, follow-up was documented in 66.4% (n = 1,909,326). Lower follow-up rates were observed in younger women (59.4% in women < 30 years, 63.2% in women 30-39 years), Black (57.4%) and American Indian (59.5%) women, and women with no breast cancer family history (63.0%). The overall median time to diagnostic evaluation was 9 days. Longer median diagnostic evaluation time was noted in Black (14 days), other or mixed race (14 days), and Hispanic women (13 days). Of the 318,977 recalled screening mammograms recommended for biopsy, 238,556 (74.8%) biopsies were documented. Lower biopsy rates were noted in older women (71.5% in women aged ≥80) and Black (71.5%) and American Indian (52.2%) women. The overall median time from diagnostic evaluation to biopsy was 21 days. Longer median biopsy time was noted in older (23 days aged ≥80), Black (25 days), mixed or other race (26 days), and Hispanic women (23 days), and rural (24 days) or community hospital affiliated facilities (22 days). DISCUSSION: There is variability in the rates and timeliness of diagnostic evaluation and biopsy in women with abnormal screening mammogram. Subsets of women and facilities could benefit from targeted interventions to promote timely diagnostic resolution and biopsy after an abnormal screening mammogram.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Breast Imaging: An Analysis of the National Mammography Database.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to quantify the initial decline and subsequent rebound in breast cancer screening metrics throughout the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: Screening and diagnostic mammographic examinations, biopsies performed, and cancer diagnoses were extracted from the ACR National Mammography Database from March 1, 2019, through May 31, 2021. Patient (race and age) and facility (regional location, community type, and facility type) demographics were collected. Three time periods were used for analysis: pre-COVID-19 (March 1, 2019, to May 31, 2019), peak COVID-19 (March 1, 2020, to May 31, 2020), and COVID-19 recovery (March 1, 2021, to May 31, 2021). Analysis was performed at the facility level and overall between time periods. RESULTS: In total, 5,633,783 screening mammographic studies, 1,282,374 diagnostic mammographic studies, 231,390 biopsies, and 69,657 cancer diagnoses were analyzed. All peak COVID-19 metrics were less than pre-COVID-19 volumes: 36.3% of pre-COVID-19 for screening mammography, 57.9% for diagnostic mammography, 47.3% for biopsies, and 48.7% for cancer diagnoses. There was some rebound during COVID-19 recovery as a percentage of pre-COVID-19 volumes: 85.3% of pre-COVID-19 for screening mammography, 97.8% for diagnostic mammography, 91.5% for biopsies, and 92.0% for cancer diagnoses. Across various metrics, there was a disproportionate negative impact on older women, Asian women, facilities in the Northeast, and facilities affiliated with academic medical centers. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 had the greatest impact on screening mammography volumes, which have not returned to pre-COVID-19 levels. Cancer diagnoses declined significantly in the acute phase and have not fully rebounded, emphasizing the need to increase outreach efforts directed at specific patient population and facility types.

Cancer Yield and Patterns of Follow-up for BI-RADS Category 3 after Screening Mammography Recall in the National Mammography Database.

Background The literature supports the use of short-interval follow-up as an alternative to biopsy for lesions assessed as probably benign, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category 3, with an expected malignancy rate of less than 2%. Purpose To assess outcomes from 6-, 12-, and 24-month follow-up of probably benign findings first identified at recall from screening mammography in the National Mammography Database (NMD). Materials and Methods This retrospective study included women recalled from screening mammography with BI-RADS category 3 assessment at additional evaluation from January 2009 through March 2018 from 471 NMD facilities. Only the first BI-RADS category 3 occurrence for women aged 25 years or older with no personal history of breast cancer was analyzed, with biopsy or 2-year imaging follow-up. Cancer yield and positive predictive value of biopsies performed (PPV3) were determined at each follow-up. Results Among 45 202 women (median age, 55 years; range, 25-90 years) with a BI-RADS category 3 lesion, 1574 (3.5%) underwent biopsy at the time of lesion detection, yielding 72 cancers (cancer yield, 4.6%; 72 of 1574 women). For the remaining 43 628 women who accepted surveillance, 922 were seen within 90 days (with 78 lesions biopsied and 12 [15%] classified as malignant). The women still in surveillance (31 465 of 43 381 women [72.5%]) underwent follow-up mammography at 6 months. Of 3001 (9.5%) lesions biopsied, 456 (15.2%) were malignant (cancer yield, 1.5%; 456 of 31 465 women; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.3%, 1.6%). Among 18 748 of 25 997 women (72.1%) in surveillance who underwent follow-up at 12 months, 1219 (6.5%) underwent biopsy with 230 (18.9%) malignant lesions found (cancer yield, 1.2%; 230 of 18 748 women; 95% CI: 1.1%, 1.4%). Through 2-year follow-up, the biopsy rate was 11.2% (4894 of 43 628 women) with a cancer yield of 1.86% (810 malignancies found among 43 628 women; 95% CI: 1.73%, 1.98%) and a PPV3 of 16.6% (810 malignancies found among 4894 women). Conclusion In the National Mammography Database, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category 3 use is appropriate, with 1.86% cumulative cancer yield through 2-year follow-up. Of 810 malignancies, 468 (57.8%) were diagnosed at or before 6 months, validating necessity of short-interval follow-up of mammographic BI-RADS category 3 findings. © RSNA, 2020 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Moy in this issue.

Radiologist Agreement for Mammographic Recall by Case Difficulty and Finding Type.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess agreement of mammographic interpretations by community radiologists with consensus interpretations of an expert radiology panel to inform approaches that improve mammographic performance. METHODS: From 6 mammographic registries, 119 community-based radiologists were recruited to assess 1 of 4 randomly assigned test sets of 109 screening mammograms with comparison studies for no recall or recall, giving the most significant finding type (mass, calcifications, asymmetric density, or architectural distortion) and location. The mean proportion of agreement with an expert radiology panel was calculated by cancer status, finding type, and difficulty level of identifying the finding at the patient, breast, and lesion level. Concordance in finding type between study radiologists and the expert panel was also examined. For each finding type, the proportion of unnecessary recalls, defined as study radiologist recalls that were not expert panel recalls, was determined. RESULTS: Recall agreement was 100% for masses and for examinations with obvious findings in both cancer and noncancer cases. Among cancer cases, recall agreement was lower for lesions that were subtle (50%) or asymmetric (60%). Subtle noncancer findings and benign calcifications showed 33% agreement for recall. Agreement for finding responsible for recall was low, especially for architectural distortions (43%) and asymmetric densities (40%). Most unnecessary recalls (51%) were asymmetric densities. CONCLUSIONS: Agreement in mammographic interpretation was low for asymmetric densities and architectural distortions. Training focused on these interpretations could improve the accuracy of mammography and reduce unnecessary recalls.

Criteria for identifying radiologists with acceptable screening mammography interpretive performance on basis of multiple performance measures.

OBJECTIVE: Using a combination of performance measures, we updated previously proposed criteria for identifying physicians whose performance interpreting screening mammography may indicate suboptimal interpretation skills. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this study, six expert breast imagers used a method based on the Angoff approach to update criteria for acceptable mammography performance on the basis of two sets of combined performance measures: set 1, sensitivity and specificity for facilities with complete capture of false-negative cancers; and set 2, cancer detection rate (CDR), recall rate, and positive predictive value of a recall (PPV1) for facilities that cannot capture false-negative cancers but have reliable cancer follow-up information for positive mammography results. Decisions were informed by normative data from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC). RESULTS: Updated combined ranges for acceptable sensitivity and specificity of screening mammography are sensitivity≥80% and specificity≥85% or sensitivity 75-79% and specificity 88-97%. Updated ranges for CDR, recall rate, and PPV1 are: CDR≥6 per 1000, recall rate 3-20%, and any PPV1; CDR 4-6 per 1000, recall rate 3-15%, and PPV1≥3%; or CDR 2.5-4.0 per 1000, recall rate 5-12%, and PPV1 3-8%. Using the original criteria, 51% of BCSC radiologists had acceptable sensitivity and specificity; 40% had acceptable CDR, recall rate, and PPV1. Using the combined criteria, 69% had acceptable sensitivity and specificity and 62% had acceptable CDR, recall rate, and PPV1. CONCLUSION: The combined criteria improve previous criteria by considering the interrelationships of multiple performance measures and broaden the acceptable performance ranges compared with previous criteria based on individual measures.

Radiologist agreement for mammographic recall by case difficulty and finding type.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess agreement of mammographic interpretations by community radiologists with consensus interpretations of an expert radiology panel to inform approaches that improve mammographic performance. METHODS: From 6 mammographic registries, 119 community-based radiologists were recruited to assess 1 of 4 randomly assigned test sets of 109 screening mammograms with comparison studies for no recall or recall, giving the most significant finding type (mass, calcifications, asymmetric density, or architectural distortion) and location. The mean proportion of agreement with an expert radiology panel was calculated by cancer status, finding type, and difficulty level of identifying the finding at the patient, breast, and lesion level. Concordance in finding type between study radiologists and the expert panel was also examined. For each finding type, the proportion of unnecessary recalls, defined as study radiologist recalls that were not expert panel recalls, was determined. RESULTS: Recall agreement was 100% for masses and for examinations with obvious findings in both cancer and noncancer cases. Among cancer cases, recall agreement was lower for lesions that were subtle (50%) or asymmetric (60%). Subtle noncancer findings and benign calcifications showed 33% agreement for recall. Agreement for finding responsible for recall was low, especially for architectural distortions (43%) and asymmetric densities (40%). Most unnecessary recalls (51%) were asymmetric densities. CONCLUSIONS: Agreement in mammographic interpretation was low for asymmetric densities and architectural distortions. Training focused on these interpretations could improve the accuracy of mammography and reduce unnecessary recalls.

Mammographic interpretation: radiologists' ability to accurately estimate their performance and compare it with that of their peers.

OBJECTIVE: The purposes of this study were to determine whether U.S. radiologists accurately estimate their own interpretive performance of screening mammography and to assess how they compare their performance with that of their peers. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Between 2005 and 2006, 174 radiologists from six Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium registries completed a mailed survey. The radiologists' estimated and actual recall, false-positive, and cancer detection rates and positive predictive value of biopsy recommendation (PPV(2)) for screening mammography were compared. Radiologists' ratings of their performance as lower than, similar to, or higher than that of their peers were compared with their actual performance. Associations with radiologist characteristics were estimated with weighted generalized linear models. RESULTS: Although most radiologists accurately estimated their cancer detection and recall rates (74% and 78% of radiologists), fewer accurately estimated their false-positive rate (19%) and PPV(2) (26%). Radiologists reported having recall rates similar to (43%) or lower than (31%) and false-positive rates similar to (52%) or lower than (33%) those of their peers and similar (72%) or higher (23%) cancer detection rates and similar (72%) or higher (38%) PPV(2). Estimation accuracy did not differ by radiologist characteristics except that radiologists who interpreted 1000 or fewer mammograms annually were less accurate at estimating their recall rates. CONCLUSION: Radiologists perceive their performance to be better than it actually is and at least as good as that of their peers. Radiologists have particular difficulty estimating their false-positive rates and PPV(2).

Mammographic interpretive volume and diagnostic mammogram interpretation performance in community practice.

PURPOSE: To investigate the association between radiologist interpretive volume and diagnostic mammography performance in community-based settings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study received institutional review board approval and was HIPAA compliant. A total of 117,136 diagnostic mammograms that were interpreted by 107 radiologists between 2002 and 2006 in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium were included. Logistic regression analysis was used to estimate the adjusted effect on sensitivity and the rates of false-positive findings and cancer detection of four volume measures: annual diagnostic volume, screening volume, total volume, and diagnostic focus (percentage of total volume that is diagnostic). Analyses were stratified by the indication for imaging: additional imaging after screening mammography or evaluation of a breast concern or problem. RESULTS: Diagnostic volume was associated with sensitivity; the odds of a true-positive finding rose until a diagnostic volume of 1000 mammograms was reached; thereafter, they either leveled off (P < .001 for additional imaging) or decreased (P = .049 for breast concerns or problems) with further volume increases. Diagnostic focus was associated with false-positive rate; the odds of a false-positive finding increased until a diagnostic focus of 20% was reached and decreased thereafter (P < .024 for additional imaging and P < .001 for breast concerns or problems with no self-reported lump). Neither total volume nor screening volume was consistently associated with diagnostic performance. CONCLUSION: Interpretive volume and diagnostic performance have complex multifaceted relationships. Our results suggest that diagnostic interpretive volume is a key determinant in the development of thresholds for considering a diagnostic mammogram to be abnormal. Current volume regulations do not distinguish between screening and diagnostic mammography, and doing so would likely be challenging.

Are radiologists' goals for mammography accuracy consistent with published recommendations?

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Mammography quality assurance programs have been in place for more than a decade. We studied radiologists' self-reported performance goals for accuracy in screening mammography and compared them to published recommendations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A mailed survey of radiologists at mammography registries in seven states within the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) assessed radiologists' performance goals for interpreting screening mammograms. Self-reported goals were compared to published American College of Radiology (ACR) recommended desirable ranges for recall rate, false-positive rate, positive predictive value of biopsy recommendation (PPV2), and cancer detection rate. Radiologists' goals for interpretive accuracy within desirable range were evaluated for associations with their demographic characteristics, clinical experience, and receipt of audit reports. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 71% (257 of 364 radiologists). The percentage of radiologists reporting goals within desirable ranges was 79% for recall rate, 22% for false-positive rate, 39% for PPV2, and 61% for cancer detection rate. The range of reported goals was 0%-100% for false-positive rate and PPV2. Primary academic affiliation, receiving more hours of breast imaging continuing medical education, and receiving audit reports at least annually were associated with desirable PPV2 goals. Radiologists reporting desirable cancer detection rate goals were more likely to have interpreted mammograms for 10 or more years, and >1000 mammograms per year. CONCLUSION: Many radiologists report goals for their accuracy when interpreting screening mammograms that fall outside of published desirable benchmarks, particularly for false-positive rate and PPV2, indicating an opportunity for education.

Timeliness of follow-up after abnormal screening mammogram: variability of facilities.

PURPOSE: To describe the timeliness of follow-up care in community-based settings among women who receive a recommendation for immediate follow-up during the screening mammography process and how follow-up timeliness varies according to facility and facility-level characteristics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was an institutional review board-approved and HIPAA-compliant study. Screening mammograms obtained from 1996 to 2007 in women 40-80 years old in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium were examined. Inclusion criteria were a recommendation for immediate follow-up at screening, or subsequent imaging, and observed follow-up within 180 days of the recommendation. Recommendations for additional imaging (AI) and biopsy or surgical consultation (BSC) were analyzed separately. The distribution of time to follow-up care was estimated by using the Kaplan-Meier estimator. RESULTS: Data were available on 214,897 AI recommendations from 118 facilities and 35,622 BSC recommendations from 101 facilities. The median time to subsequent follow-up care after recommendation was 14 days for AI and 16 days for BSC. Approximately 90% of AI follow-up and 81% of BSC follow-up occurred within 30 days. Facilities with higher recall rates tended to have longer AI follow-up times (P < .001). Over the study period, BSC follow-up rates at 15 and 30 days improved (P < .001). Follow-up times varied substantially across facilities. Timely follow-up was associated with larger volumes of the recommended procedures but not notably associated with facility type nor observed facility-level characteristics. CONCLUSION: Most patients with follow-up returned within 3 weeks of the recommendation.

Influence of annual interpretive volume on screening mammography performance in the United States.

PURPOSE: To examine whether U.S. radiologists' interpretive volume affects their screening mammography performance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Annual interpretive volume measures (total, screening, diagnostic, and screening focus [ratio of screening to diagnostic mammograms]) were collected for 120 radiologists in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) who interpreted 783 965 screening mammograms from 2002 to 2006. Volume measures in 1 year were examined by using multivariate logistic regression relative to screening sensitivity, false-positive rates, and cancer detection rate the next year. BCSC registries and the Statistical Coordinating Center received institutional review board approval for active or passive consenting processes and a Federal Certificate of Confidentiality and other protections for participating women, physicians, and facilities. All procedures were compliant with the terms of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. RESULTS: Mean sensitivity was 85.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 83.7%, 86.6%) and was significantly lower for radiologists with a greater screening focus (P = .023) but did not significantly differ by total (P = .47), screening (P = .33), or diagnostic (P = .23) volume. The mean false-positive rate was 9.1% (95% CI: 8.1%, 10.1%), with rates significantly higher for radiologists who had the lowest total (P = .008) and screening (P = .015) volumes. Radiologists with low diagnostic volume (P = .004 and P = .008) and a greater screening focus (P = .003 and P = .002) had significantly lower false-positive and cancer detection rates, respectively. Median invasive tumor size and proportion of cancers detected at early stages did not vary by volume. CONCLUSION: Increasing minimum interpretive volume requirements in the United States while adding a minimal requirement for diagnostic interpretation could reduce the number of false-positive work-ups without hindering cancer detection. These results provide detailed associations between mammography volumes and performance for policymakers to consider along with workforce, practice organization, and access issues and radiologist experience when reevaluating requirements.

Accuracy of screening mammography varies by week of menstrual cycle.

PURPOSE: To investigate sensitivity, specificity, and cancer detection rate of screening mammography according to week of menstrual cycle among premenopausal women. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this institutional review board-approved HIPAA-compliant study, sensitivity, specificity, and cancer detection rate of 387,218 screening mammograms linked to 1283 breast cancers in premenopausal women according to week of menstrual cycle were studied by using prospectively collected information from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Logistic regression analysis was used to test for differences in mammography performance according to week of menstrual cycle, adjusting for age and registry. RESULTS: Overall, screening mammography performance did not differ according to week of menstrual cycle. However, when analyses were subdivided according to prior mammography, different patterns emerged. For the 66.6% of women who had undergone regular screening (mammography had been performed within the past 2 years), sensitivity was higher in week 1 (79.5%) than in subsequent weeks (week 2, 70.3%; week 3, 67.4%; week 4, 73.0%; P = .041). In the 17.8% of women who underwent mammography for the first time in this study, sensitivity tended to be lower during the follicular phase (week 1, 72.1%; week 2, 80.4%; week 3, 84.6%; week 4, 93.8%; P = .051). Sensitivity did not vary significantly by week in menstrual cycle in women who had undergone mammography more than 3 years earlier. There were no clinically meaningful differences in specificity or cancer detection rate. CONCLUSION: Premenopausal women who undergo regular screening may benefit from higher sensitivity of mammography if they schedule screening mammography during the 1st week of their menstrual cycle. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.10100974/-/DC1.

Breast MRI in community practice: equipment and imaging techniques at facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.

PURPOSE: MRI is increasingly used for the detection of breast carcinoma. Little is known about breast MRI techniques among community practice facilities. The aim of this study was to evaluate equipment and acquisition techniques used by community facilities across the United States, including compliance with minimum standards by the ACRIN® 6667 Trial and the European Society of Breast Imaging. METHODS: Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium facilities performing breast MRI were identified and queried by survey regarding breast MRI equipment and technical parameters. Variables included scanner field strength, coil type, acquisition coverage, slice thickness, and the timing of the initial postcontrast sequence. Results were tallied and percentages of facilities meeting ACRIN® and European Society of Breast Imaging standards were calculated. RESULTS: From 23 facilities performing breast MRI, results were obtained from 14 (61%) facilities with 16 MRI scanners reporting 18 imaging parameters. Compliance with equipment recommendations of ≥1.5-T field strength was 94% and of a dedicated breast coil was 100%. Eighty-three percent of acquisitions used bilateral postcontrast techniques, and 78% used slice thickness≤3 mm. The timing of initial postcontrast sequences ranged from 58 seconds to 8 minutes 30 seconds, with 63% meeting recommendations for completion within 4 minutes. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly all surveyed facilities met ACRIN and European Society of Breast Imaging standards for breast MRI equipment. The majority met standards for acquisition parameters, although techniques varied, in particular for the timing of initial postcontrast imaging. Further guidelines by the ACR Breast MRI Accreditation Program will be of importance in facilitating standardized and high-quality breast MRI.

Method of detection and breast cancer survival disparities in Hispanic women.

BACKGROUND: Hispanic women in New Mexico (NM) are more likely than non-Hispanic women to die of breast cancer-related causes. We determined whether survival differences between Hispanic and non-Hispanic women might be attributable to the method of detection, an independent breast cancer prognostic factor in previous studies. METHODS: White women diagnosed with invasive breast cancer from 1995 through 2004 were identified from NM Surveillance Epidemiology End Results (SEER) files (n = 5,067) and matched to NM Mammography Project records. Method of cancer detection was categorized as "symptomatic" or "screen-detected." The proportion of Hispanic survival disparity accounted for by included variables was assessed using Cox models. RESULTS: In the median follow-up of 87 months, 490 breast cancer deaths occurred. Symptomatic versus screen-detection was classifiable for 3,891 women (76.8%), and was independently related to breast cancer-specific survival [hazard ratio (HR), 1.6; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 1.3-2.0]. Hispanic women had a 1.5-fold increased risk of breast cancer-related death, relative to non-Hispanic women (95% CI, 1.2-1.8). After adjustment for detection method, the Hispanic HR declined from 1.50 to 1.45 (10%), but after inclusion of other prognostic indicators the Hispanic HR equaled 1.23 (95% CI, 1.01-1.48). CONCLUSIONS: Although the Hispanic HR declined 50% after adjustment, the decrease was largely due to adverse tumor prognostic characteristics. IMPACT: Reduction of disparate survival in Hispanic women may rely not only on increased detection of tumors when asymptomatic but on the development of greater understanding of biological factors that predispose to poor prognosis tumors.

Radiologists' attitudes and use of mammography audit reports.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The US Mammography Quality Standards Act mandates medical audits to track breast cancer outcomes data associated with interpretive performance. The objectives of our study were to assess the content and style of audits and examine use of, attitudes toward, and perceptions of the value that radiologists' have regarding mandated medical audits. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Radiologists (n = 364) at mammography registries in seven US states contributing data to the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) were invited to participate. We examined radiologists' demographic characteristics, clinical experience, use, attitudes, and perceived value of audit reports from results of a self-administered survey. Information on the content and style of BCSC audits provided to radiologists and facilities was obtained from site investigators. Radiologists' characteristics were analyzed according to whether or not they self-reported receiving regular mammography audit reports. Latent class analysis was used to classify radiologists' individual perceptions of audit reports into overall probabilities of having "favorable," "less favorable," "neutral," or "unfavorable" attitudes toward audit reports. RESULTS: Seventy-one percent (257 of 364) of radiologists completed the survey; two radiologists did not complete the audit survey question, leaving 255 for the final study cohort. Most survey respondents received regular audits (91%), paid close attention to their audit numbers (83%), found the reports valuable (87%), and felt that audit reports prompted them to improve interpretative performance (75%). Variability was noted in the style, target audience, and frequency of reports provided by the BCSC registries. One in four radiologists reported that if Congress mandates more intensive auditing requirements, but does not provide funding to support this regulation they may stop interpreting mammograms. CONCLUSION: Radiologists working in breast imaging generally had favorable opinions of audit reports, which were mandated by Congress; however, almost 1 in 10 radiologists reported that they did not receive audits.

Identifying minimally acceptable interpretive performance criteria for screening mammography.

PURPOSE: To develop criteria to identify thresholds for minimally acceptable physician performance in interpreting screening mammography studies and to profile the impact that implementing these criteria may have on the practice of radiology in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In an institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant study, an Angoff approach was used in two phases to set criteria for identifying minimally acceptable interpretive performance at screening mammography as measured by sensitivity, specificity, recall rate, positive predictive value (PPV) of recall (PPV(1)) and of biopsy recommendation (PPV(2)), and cancer detection rate. Performance measures were considered separately. In phase I, a group of 10 expert radiologists considered a hypothetical pool of 100 interpreting physicians and conveyed their cut points of minimally acceptable performance. The experts were informed that a physician's performance falling outside the cut points would result in a recommendation to consider additional training. During each round of scoring, all expert radiologists' cut points were summarized into a mean, median, mode, and range; these were presented back to the group. In phase II, normative data on performance were shown to illustrate the potential impact cut points would have on radiology practice. Rescoring was done until consensus among experts was achieved. Simulation methods were used to estimate the potential impact of performance that improved to acceptable levels if effective additional training was provided. RESULTS: Final cut points to identify low performance were as follows: sensitivity less than 75%, specificity less than 88% or greater than 95%, recall rate less than 5% or greater than 12%, PPV(1) less than 3% or greater than 8%, PPV(2) less than 20% or greater than 40%, and cancer detection rate less than 2.5 per 1000 interpretations. The selected cut points for performance measures would likely result in 18%-28% of interpreting physicians being considered for additional training on the basis of sensitivity and cancer detection rate, while the cut points for specificity, recall, and PPV(1) and PPV(2) would likely affect 34%-49% of practicing interpreters. If underperforming physicians moved into the acceptable range, detection of an additional 14 cancers per 100000 women screened and a reduction in the number of false-positive examinations by 880 per 100000 women screened would be expected. CONCLUSION: This study identified minimally acceptable performance levels for interpreters of screening mammography studies. Interpreting physicians whose performance falls outside the identified cut points should be reviewed in the context of their specific practice settings and be considered for additional training.