National Cancer Institute Home at the National Institutes of Health | www.cancer.gov
Please wait while this form is being loaded....

Publication Abstract

Authors: Carney PA, Cook AJ, Miglioretti DL, Feig SA, Bowles EA, Geller BM, Kerlikowske K, Kettler M, Onega T, Elmore JG

Title: Use of clinical history affects accuracy of interpretive performance of screening mammography.

Journal: J Clin Epidemiol 65(2):219-30

Date: 2012 Feb

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To examine how use of clinical history affects radiologist's interpretation of screening mammography. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Using a self-administered survey and actual interpretive performance, we examined associations between use of clinical history and sensitivity, false-positive rate, recall rate, and positive predictive value, after adjusting for relevant covariates using conditional logistic regression. RESULTS: Of the 216 radiologists surveyed (63.4%), most radiologists reported usually or always using clinical history when interpreting screening mammography. Compared with radiologists who rarely use clinical history, radiologists who usually or always use it had a higher false-positive rate with younger women (10.7 vs. 9.7), denser breast tissue (10.1 for heterogeneously dense to 10.9 for extremely dense vs. 8.9 for fatty tissue), or longer screening intervals (> prior 5 years) (12.5 vs. 10.5). Effect of current hormone therapy (HT) use on false-positive rate was weaker among radiologists who use clinical history compared with those who did not (P=0.01), resulting in fewer false-positive examinations and a nonsignificant lower sensitivity (79.2 vs. 85.2) among HT users. CONCLUSION: Interpretive performance appears to be influenced by patient age, breast density, screening interval, and HT use. This influence does not always result in improved interpretive performance.

Last Modified: 03 Sep 2013