Getting regular screening mammograms after age 40 is one of the best ways to detect breast cancer early, when it's most treatable. But reading screening mammograms is not a perfect science. Sometimes cancers are missed. And sometimes areas that aren't cancer might be identified as cancer ("false positive"). The study reviewed here looked at whether certain characteristics of mammogram centers might affect the accuracy of screening mammogram readings.
An accurate reading means that:
Of 44 mammogram centers studied, centers with the following characteristics were more likely to have accurate screening mammogram readings:
By better understanding the center characteristics linked to more accurate screening mammogram readings, mammography centers may be able to make changes to improve accuracy. These results also may help doctors recommend a screening mammography center.
Still, it's important to know that other factors not mentioned in this study have been linked to more accurate mammogram readings. One of the most important factors is whether the doctor reading the mammogram has access to previous mammogram images and then compares the new images to the older ones.
Many women in the United States have trouble finding a mammography center that is conveniently located, affordable, and has easy and timely scheduling. In this case, asking center staff members to take any and all steps to make sure the reading is accurate -- such as comparing new images and old images -- may be all that can be done to increase the chances of getting an accurate reading. Women with several mammogram centers to choose from have the option of asking their doctors for a recommendation, based on reading accuracy.
Read more about mammograms and other approaches to breast cancer screening in the Breastcancer.org Screening and Testing section.
BETHESDA, Md., June 11 -- Screening mammography facilities that have their ducks in a row are significantly more likely to interpret images accurately than institutions with looser attributes.
Higher accuracy of interpretation was associated with facilities that offered only screening mammography, had a breast imaging specialist to interpret mammogram, and performed single reading, said Stephen Taplin, M.D., of the National Cancer Institute. Such institutions also conducted two or more audit reviews a year.
"Identifying facility structures and process that influence interpretive performance could be a foundation for improving the quality of mammography interpretive performance and choices among mammography facilities," Dr. Taplin and colleagues concluded in the June 18 issue of the Journal of the national Cancer Institute.
Patient and radiologist characteristics have been shown to affect mammographic interpretive performance. However, the characteristics examined account for only 10% of the variation in performance, the authors said.
Variation among mammography facilities has not been examined carefully, if at all, Dr. Taplin and colleagues continued. Identification of facility-specific factors that affect interpretive performance could help patients and physicians make better informed decisions about choosing a mammography facility and could inform the facilities about changes in practice that could improve interpretive performance.
Dr. Taplin and colleagues examined factors influencing interpretive performance at 44 mammography facilities that performed 484,463 screening mammograms on 237,669 women from 1996 to 2002. Breast cancer was diagnosed in 2,686 women during follow-up.
The 44 facilities had a mean sensitivity of 79.6% and a mean specificity of 90.2%. Mean positive predictive value was 4.1%. Investigators calculated positive predictive value on the basis of the likelihood that cancer would be found among women referred for biopsy, and the mean among the facilities was 38.8%.
The facilities' interpretive performance varied significantly with respect to specificity (P<0.001), positive predictive value (P<0.001), and the biopsy-defined positive predictive value (P=0.002). Additionally, the authors identified four facility characteristics that significantly influenced interpretative performance, as defined by area under the curve:
Neither facility volume nor method of audit review influenced performance.
The study had a number of limitations including missing data, possible unaccounted differences among women and radiologists, and inability to assess differences in double-reading methods. The finding of poorer interpretive performance in facilities doing double readings is not consistent with other studies.
"Understanding how facility characteristics influence interpretive accuracy is important because it could allow women and physicians to choose a mammography facility based on characteristics that are more likely to be associated with higher quality," the authors said. "Radiologists could also change the facilities' structure or processes to include practices that improve interpretive accuracy."
| The authors reported no disclosures. |
Breastcancer.org 7 East Lancaster Avenue, 3rd Floor Ardmore, PA 19003
Learn more about our commitment to your privacy
© 2009 Breastcancer.org - All rights reserved.
Breastcancer.org is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing information and community to those touched by this disease. Learn more about our commitment to providing complete, accurate, and private breast cancer information.
_tcm8-332386.jpg "wellness_dvd_promo")