Performance Benchmarks for Diagnostic Mammography

Sickles EA, Miglioretti DL, Ballard-Barbash R, Geller BM, Leung JWT, Rosenberg RD, Smith-Bindman R, Yankaskas BC. Performance benchmarks for diagnostic mammography. Radiology 2005;235(3):775-790. [Abstract]

In the United States, a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulation requires limited auditing of clinical outcomes for all screening and diagnostic mammography examinations that have been assessed as either suspicious for malignancy or highly suggestive of malignancy. More comprehensive auditing is performed by many mammography facilities in both the United States and other countries. Auditing is thought to be a useful quality assurance procedure, providing performance feedback to both mammography facilities and individual interpreting radiologists.

The following tables and figures contain a range of performance parameters pertinent to the comprehensive auditing of diagnostic mammography examinations. These tables and figures contain supplemental information from the published paper listed above. (Note: These data have not been submitted for peer review.) Pooling of these data from BCSC registries provides by far the largest reported experience involving diagnostic mammography practice, from which reasonable and realistic performance benchmarks may be derived.

Tables

The latest estimates for the following tables are based on 401,572 diagnostic mammography examinations performed between 2002 and 2006.

• Clinical Demographics by Indication for Examination for Diagnostic Mammography Examinations, 2002 - 2006 --- based on BCSC data as of 2009
  • View earlier data collections: 2007
• Abnormal Interpretations by Indication for Examination for Diagnostic Mammography Examinations, 2002 - 2006 --- based on BCSC data as of 2009
  • View earlier data collections: 2007
• Cancers by Indication for Examination for Diagnostic Mammography Examinations, 2002 - 2006 --- based on BCSC data as of 2009
  • View earlier data collections: 2007
• Sensitivity and Specificity by Indication for Examination for Diagnostic Mammography Examinations, 2002 - 2006 --- based on BCSC data as of 2009
  • View earlier data collections: 2007
• Benchmarks for Abnormal Diagnostic Mammography Interpretations by Indication for Examination, 2002 - 2006 --- based on BCSC data as of 2009
  • View earlier data collections: 2007
• Benchmarks for Cancers by Indication for Examination for Diagnostic Mammography Examinations, 2002 - 2006 --- based on BCSC data as of 2009
  • View earlier data collections: 2007
• Benchmarks for Sensitivity and Specificity by Indication for Examination for Diagnostic Mammography Examinations, 2002 - 2006 --- based on BCSC data as of 2009
  • View earlier data collections: 2007

Figures

The following figures display smoothed plots of frequency distributions for performance parameters as a function of indication for examination.

1. Smoothed Plots of Frequency Distributions of Abnormal Interpretation Rates for 401,572 Diagnostic Mammography Examinations (Among Radiologists with Ten or More Examinations), 2002 - 2006 --- based on BCSC data as of 2009
   • View earlier data collections: 2007
2. Smoothed Plots of Frequency Distributions of PPV₁ for Diagnostic Mammography Examinations with Abnormal Findings (Among Radiologists with Ten or More Examinations with Abnormal Findings) --- not calculated based on BCSC data as of 2009
   • View earlier data collections: 2007
3. Smoothed Plots of Frequency Distributions of PPV₂ for 37,378 Diagnostic Mammography Examinations with Abnormal Results for Which Biopsy was Recommended (Among Radiologists with Ten or More Biopsies Recommended), 2002 - 2006 --- based on BCSC data as of 2009
   • View earlier data collections: 2007
4. Smoothed Plots of Frequency Distributions of PPV₃ for 27,287 Diagnostic Mammography Examinations with Abnormal Results for Which Biopsy was Recommended and Performed (Among Radiologists with Ten or More Biopsies Performed), 2002 - 2006 --- based on BCSC data as of 2009
   • View earlier data collections: 2007
5. Smoothed Plots of Frequency Distributions of Cancer Diagnosis Rates for 347,755 Diagnostic Mammography Examinations (Among Radiologists with 100 or More Examinations), 2002 - 2006 --- based on BCSC data as of 2009
   • View earlier data collections: 2007
6. Smoothed Plots of Frequency Distributions of Invasive Cancer Size for 6,873 Invasive Cancers of Known Size That Were Identified at Diagnostic Mammography (Among Radiologists Finding Five or More Invasive Cancers of Known Size), 2002 - 2006 --- based on BCSC data as of 2009
   • View earlier data collections: 2007
7. Smoothed Plots of Frequency Distributions of Minimal Cancer Percentage for 9,221 DCIS and Invasive Cancers of Known Size That Were Identified at Diagnostic Mammography (Among Radiologists Finding Five or More DCIS and Invasive Cancers of Known Size), 2002 - 2006 --- based on BCSC data as of 2009
   • View earlier data collections: 2007
8. Smoothed Plots of Frequency Distributions of Node-Negative Percentage for 7,570 Invasive Cancers That Were Identified at Diagnostic Mammography (Among Radiologists Finding Five or More Invasive Cancers of Known Nodal Status), 2002 - 2006 --- based on BCSC data as of 2009
   • View earlier data collections: 2007
9. Smoothed Plots of Frequency Distributions of Stage 0 or I Percentage for 9,120 Cancers of Known Stage That Were Identified at Diagnostic Mammography (Among Radiologists Finding Five or More Cancers of Known Stage), 2002 - 2006 --- based on BCSC data as of 2009
   • View earlier data collections: 2007
10. Smoothed Plots of Sensitivity by Indication for Examination for 11,295 Cancers That Were Identified at Diagnostic Mammography (Among Radiologists Finding Five or More Cancers), 2002 - 2006 --- based on BCSC data as of 2009
    • View earlier data collections: 2007
11. Smoothed Plots of Specificity by Indication for Examination for 335,684 Non-cancers (Among Radiologists Finding 100 or More Non-Cancers), 2002 - 2006 --- based on BCSC data as of 2009
    • View earlier data collections: 2007