Criteria for identifying radiologists with acceptable screening mammography interpretive performance on basis of multiple performance measures

Diana L. Miglioretti, Laura Ichikawa, Robert A. Smith, Lawrence W. Bassett, Stephen A. Feig, Barbara Monsees, Jay R. Parikh, Robert D. Rosenberg, Edward A. Sickles, Patricia A. Carney

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

25 Scopus citations


Objective. Using a combination of performance measures, we updated previously proposed criteria for identifying physicians whose performance interpreting screening mammography may indicate suboptimal interpretation skills. Materials and Methods. In this study, six expert breast imagers used a method based on the Angoff approach to update criteria for acceptable mammography performance on the basis of two sets of combined performance measures: set 1, sensitivity and specificity for facilities with complete capture of false-negative cancers; and set 2, cancer detection rate (CDR), recall rate, and positive predictive value of a recall (PPV1) for facilities that cannot capture false-negative cancers but have reliable cancer follow-up information for positive mammography Results. Decisions were informed by normative data from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC). Results. Updated combined ranges for acceptable sensitivity and specificity of screening mammography are sensitivity. 80% and specificity. 85% or sensitivity 75.79% and specificity 88.97%. Updated ranges for CDR, recall rate, and PPV1 are: CDR. 6 per 1000, recall rate 3.20%, and any PPV1; CDR 4.6 per 1000, recall rate 3.15%, and PPV1. 3%; or CDR per 1000, recall rate 5.12%, and PPV1 3.8%. Using the original criteria, 51% of BCSC radiologists had acceptable sensitivity and specificity; 40% had acceptable CDR, recall rate, and PPV1. Using the combined criteria, 69% had acceptable sensitivity and specificity and 62% had acceptable CDR, recall rate, and PPV1. Conclusion. The combined criteria improve previous criteria by considering the interrelationships of multiple performance measures and broaden the acceptable performance ranges compared with previous criteria based on individual measures.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)W486-W491
JournalAmerican Journal of Roentgenology
Issue number4
StatePublished - Apr 1 2015


  • Audit
  • Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC)
  • Mammography
  • Performance
  • Screening

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging


Dive into the research topics of 'Criteria for identifying radiologists with acceptable screening mammography interpretive performance on basis of multiple performance measures'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this