Use of clinical history affects accuracy of interpretive performance of screening mammography

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.

Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Figures

Figure 1

Summary of Exclusions/Inclusions of Radiologists, Mammograms and Facilities