Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume 63, Issue 4 , Pages 441-451, April 2010

Decreased accuracy in interpretation of community-based screening mammography for women with multiple clinical risk factors

  • Andrea J. Cook

      Affiliations

    • Biostatistics Unit, Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA
    • Department of Biostatistics, University of Washington School of Public Health and Community Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Biostatistics Unit, Group Health Research Institute, 1730 Minor Avenue, Suite 1600, Seattle, WA 98101, USA. Tel.: +206-287-4257; fax: +206-287-4710.
  • ,
  • Joann G. Elmore

      Affiliations

    • Department of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Harborview Medial Center, Seattle, WA, USA
  • ,
  • Diana L. Miglioretti

      Affiliations

    • Biostatistics Unit, Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA
    • Department of Biostatistics, University of Washington School of Public Health and Community Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA
  • ,
  • Edward A. Sickles

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, University of California School of Medicine, UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco, CA, USA
  • ,
  • Erin J. Aiello Bowles

      Affiliations

    • Biostatistics Unit, Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA
  • ,
  • Gary R. Cutter

      Affiliations

    • Department of Biostatistics, University of Alabama School of Public Health, Birmingham, AB, USA
  • ,
  • Patricia A. Carney

      Affiliations

    • Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA
    • Department of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA

Accepted 27 June 2009. published online 10 September 2009.

Abstract 

Objective

To assess the impact of women's breast cancer risk factors (use of hormone therapy, family history of breast cancer, previous breast biopsy) on radiologists' mammographic interpretive performance and whether the influence of risk factors varies according to radiologist characteristics.

Study Design and Setting

Screening mammograms (n=638,947) performed from 1996 to 2005 by 134 radiologists from three Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium registries was linked to cancer outcomes, radiologist surveys, and patient questionnaires. Interpretive performance measures were modeled using marginal and conditional logistic regression.

Results

Having one or more clinical risk factors was associated with higher recall rates (1 vs. 0 risk factors: odds ratio [OR]=1.17, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.15–1.19; ≥2 vs. 0: OR=1.43, 95% CI=1.40–1.47) and lower specificity (1 vs. 0: OR=0.86 [95% CI=0.84–0.88]; ≥2 vs. 0: OR=0.70 [95% CI=0.68–0.72]) without a corresponding improvement in sensitivity and only a small increase in positive predictive value (1 vs. 0: OR=1.08 [95% CI=0.99–1.19]; ≥2 vs. 0: OR=1.12 [95% CI=0.99–1.26]). There was no indication that influence of risk factors varied by radiologist characteristics.

Conclusion

Women with clinical risk factors who undergo screening mammography are more likely recalled for false-positive evaluation without an associated increase in cancer detection. Radiologists and patients with risk factors should be aware of this increased risk of adverse screening events.

Keywords: Breast cancer screening, Mammography, Radiologist performance, Hormone-replacement therapy, Family history, Breast biopsy

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0895-4356(09)00188-7

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.008

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume 63, Issue 4 , Pages 441-451, April 2010