Elsevier

Academic Radiology

Volume 7, Issue 12, December 2000, Pages 1058-1068
Academic Radiology

Original Investigation
Effect of variations in operational definitions on performance estimates for screening Mammography*

https://doi.org/10.1016/S1076-6332(00)80057-4Get rights and content

Rationale and Objectives.

The Mammography Quality Standards Act requires practices to measure limited aspects of their performance. The authors conducted this study to calculate the differences in measurements of sensitivity and specificity due only to differences in the definitions used in the analysis. This included definitions for case inclusion.

Materials and Methods.

Data from the New Mexico Mammography Project for January 1991 to December 1995 on 136,540 women who underwent screening mammography were analyzed. A starting definition was created for each performance measure. The components of the definition were varied, and estimates of sensitivity and specificity for the different definitions were calculated.

Results.

Sensitivity was lower and specificity was higher when assessed on the basis of the results of all imaging performed in the screening work-up rather than on the initial screening examination alone. Sensitivity was higher and specificity was lower in women who did not undergo rather than in women who did recently undergo a previous examination. When the definition of a positive examination included cases that were recommended for short-term follow-up, the work-up sensitivity was slightly higher and the work-up specificity was considerably lower. Longer follow-up times for determining the diagnosis of cancer were associated with decreasing sensitivity, particularly when the follow-up period extended beyond 12 months.

Conclusion.

Variations in the operational definitions for easures of mammographic performance affect these estimates. To facilitate valid comparisons, reports need to be explicit regarding the definitions and methods used.

References (21)

  • PatelMR et al.

    Negative mammograms in symptomatic patients with breast cancer

    Acad Radiol

    (1998)
  • LinverMN et al.

    Improvement in mammography interpretation skills in a community radiology practice after dedicated teaching courses: two-year medical audit of 38,633 cases

    Radiology

    (1992)
  • WolfeJN et al.

    Xeromammography of the breast: overview of 21,057 consecutive cases

    Radiology

    (1987)
  • MargolinFG

    Detecting early breast cancer: experience in a community hospital

    Cancer

    (1989)
  • KerlikowskeK et al.

    Effect of age, breast density, and family history on the sensitivity of first screening mammogram

    Jama

    (1996)
  • SienkoDG et al.

    Mammography use and outcomes in a community: the Greater Lansing Area Mammography Study

    Cancer

    (1993)
  • BirdRE

    Low-cost screening mammography: report on finances and review of 21,716 consecutive cases

    Radiology

    (1989)
  • DuffySW et al.

    Sojourn time, sensitivity and positive predictive value of mammography screening for breast cancer in women aged 40–49

    Int J Epidemiol

    (1996)
  • ThurfjellEL et al.

    Screening mammography: sensitivity and specificity in relation to hormone replacement therapy

    Radiology

    (1997)
  • LayaMB et al.

    Effect of estrogen replacement therapy on the specificity and sensitivity of screening mammography

    J Natl Cancer Inst

    (1996)
There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (28)

  • Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging Audit: Pitfalls, Challenges, and Future Considerations

    2021, Radiologic Clinics of North America
    Citation Excerpt :

    Truncating the audit follow-up period of the breast MR imaging removes the overlapping follow-up period for the alternating screening tests, even though they both occurred within a 1 year period. Elimination of the dual attribution of a single cancer as both true-positive for screening mammography and false-negative for MR imaging increases the calculated sensitivity of MR imaging.37 By classifying the MR imaging in this example as a true-negative examination, the calculated specificity for MR imaging increases as well.

  • Breast cancer screening outreach effectiveness: Mammogram-specific reminders vs. comprehensive preventive services birthday letters

    2017, Preventive Medicine
    Citation Excerpt :

    Overdue letters (N = 87,910) included combination of women who did not have a mammogram in the previous 12–24 months or who never had a prior mammogram. Screening adherence was defined based on screening mammogram receipt (Rosenberg et al., 2000) within a 6-month window specifically timed to the due-date indicated in the reminder letter. All overdue women had 6-months from the letter to complete screening, regardless of letter type (Fig. 1c, d).

  • Computer-Assisted Mammography Feedback Program (CAMFP). An Electronic Tool For Continuing Medical Education

    2007, Academic Radiology
    Citation Excerpt :

    The CAMFP software was designed to give radiologists feedback with respect to the specific region on a breast with a lesion, but this aspect of the program was used only for training to avoid contention regarding whether or not a radiologist had clicked on a lesion correctly. Our results may be of interest in the context of measurement of mammography performance, because it has been shown that the definition of true positives affects the measurements of sensitivity and specificity (19). There were several instances where diseased subjects were given an American College of Radiology BI-RADS 4 or 5 rating but the radiologist incorrectly located the lesion in the contralateral breast.

  • The use of additional imaging increased specificity and decreased sensitivity in screening mammography

    2005, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
    Citation Excerpt :

    This constitutes 10% of the false negatives in the study. Nevertheless, our results are similar to those for other community radiologists reported in the literature, with sensitivities of 82.7 and 84.3%, and a specificities of 90.5 and 90.3% reported respectively by Poplack et al. [28] and Rosenberg et al. [29]. Radiologists in the United States have a much higher recall rate than mammography screening programs in most other countries.

View all citing articles on Scopus
*

Supported by National Cancer Institute grant CA-95-004: Breast Cancer urveillance Research.

View full text