Performance Benchmarks for Screening Mammography

Rosenberg RD, Yankaskas BC, Abraham LA, Sickles EA, Lehman CD, Geller BM, Carney PA, Kerlikowske K, Buist DS, Weaver DL, Barlow WE, Ballard-Barbash R. Performance benchmarks for screening mammography. Radiology 2006 Oct;241(1):55-66. [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 screening 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 screening benchmarks may be derived.

Tables

Estimates for the following tables are based on 4,032,556 screening mammography examinations performed between 1996 and 2005 at 152 mammography facilities by 803 interpreting radiologists.

• Clinical Demographics for 4,032,556 Screening Mammography Examinations from 1996 - 2005
• Abnormal Interpretations for 4,032,556 Screening Mammography Examinations from 1996 - 2005
• Cancers for 4,032,556 Screening Mammography Examinations from 1996 - 2005
• Sensitivity and Specificity for 4,032,556 Screening Mammography Examinations from 1996 - 2005
• Benchmarks for Abnormal Screening Mammography Interpretations from 1996 - 2005
• Benchmarks for Cancers for Screening Mammography Examinations from 1996 - 2005
• Benchmarks for Sensitivity and Specificity for 4,032,556 Screening Mammography Examinations from 1996 - 2005

Figures

The following figures display smoothed plots of frequency distributions for screening mammography performance parameters. An overlaid solid line indicates the 50th percentile (median), paired dashed lines indicate the 25th and 75th percentiles, and paired dotted lines indicate the 10th and 90th percentiles.

1. Smoothed Plots of Frequency Distributions of Recall Rates for 3,294,680 Screening Mammography Examinations (Among Radiologists with 1000 or More Examinations), 1996 - 2005
2. Smoothed Plots of Frequency Distributions of PPV₁ for 354,085 Screening Mammography Examinations with Abnormal Findings (Among Radiologists with 100 or More Examinations with Abnormal Interpretations), 1996 - 2005
3. Smoothed Plots of Frequency Distributions of PPV₂ for 47,260 Screening Mammography Examinations with Abnormal Results for Which Biopsy was Recommended (Among Radiologists with 30 or More Biopsy Recommendations), 1996 - 2005
4. Smoothed Plots of Frequency Distributions of PPV₃ for 32,031 Screening Mammography Examinations Abnormal Results for Which Biopsy was Recommended and Performed (Among Radiologists with 30 or More Biopsies Performed), 1996 - 2005
5. Smoothed Plots of Frequency Distributions of Cancer Detection Rates for 3,294,680 Screening Mammography Examinations (Among Radiologists with 1000 or More Examinations), 1996 - 2005
6. Smoothed Plots of Frequency Distributions of Invasive Cancer Size for 8,646 Invasive Cancers of Known Size That Were Identified at Screening Mammography (Among Radiologists Finding 15 or More Invasive Cancers of Known Size), 1996 - 2005
7. Smoothed Plots of Frequency Distributions of Minimal Cancer Percentage for 12,972 DCIS and Invasive Cancers of Known Size That Were Identified at Screening Mammography (Among Radiologists Finding 15 or More DCIS and Invasive Cancers of Known Size), 1996 - 2005
8. Smoothed Plots of Frequency Distributions of Node-Negative Percentage for 9,713 Invasive Cancers That Were Identified at Screening Mammography (Among Radiologists Finding 15 or More Invasive Cancers of Known Nodal Status), 1996 - 2005
9. Smoothed Plots of Frequency Distributions of Stage 0 or I Percentage for 12,551 Cancers of Known Stage That Were Identified at Screening Mammography (Among Radiologists Finding 15 or More Cancers of Known Stage), 1996 - 2005
10. Smoothed Plots of Sensitivity for 16,324 Cancers That Were Identified at Screening Mammography (Among Radiologists Finding 30 or More Cancers), 1996 - 2005
11. Smoothed Plots of Specificity for 3,275,015 Non-cancers (Among Radiologists Finding 1000 or More Non-Cancers), 1996 - 2005