Medical Design and Outsourcing

  • Home
  • Medical Device Business
    • Mergers & Acquisitions
    • Financial
    • Regulatory
  • Applications
    • Cardiovascular
    • Devices
    • Imaging
    • Implantables
    • Medical Equipment
    • Orthopedic
    • Surgical
  • Technologies
    • Contract Manufacturing
    • Components
    • Electronics
    • Extrusions
    • Materials
    • Motion Control
    • Prototyping
    • Pumps
    • Tubing
  • Med Tech Resources
    • Subscribe to Print Magazine
    • DeviceTalks Tuesdays
    • Digital Editions
    • eBooks
    • Manufacturer Search
    • Medical Device Handbook
    • MedTech 100 Index
    • Podcasts
    • Print Subscription
    • The Big 100
    • Webinars / Digital Events
    • Whitepapers
    • Video
  • 2022 Leadership in MedTech
    • 2022 Leadership Voting!
    • 2021 Winners
    • 2020 Winners
  • Women in Medtech

Higher volume reduces false positives in screening mammography

February 21, 2011 By EurekAlert

OAK BROOK, Ill. Radiologists who interpret a high volume of mammograms may not detect more cancers but are better at determining which suspicious lesions are not malignant, according to a new study published online and in the April print edition of Radiology.

“Contrary to our expectations, we observed no clear association between volume and sensitivity,” said the study’s lead author, Diana S.M. Buist, Ph.D., M.P.H., senior investigator at the Group Health Research Institute in Seattle. “We did, however, find that radiologists with higher interpretive volume had significantly lower false-positive rates and recalled fewer women per cancer detected.”

An exam result is considered to be a false positive when further testing is recommended for a suspicious lesion but no cancer is found. In addition to causing anxiety for patients, false positives prompt additional testing that costs approximately $1.6 billion per year, according to Dr. Buist.

The study, partially funded by the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute, included a review of data from six Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium mammography registries in California, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Vermont, Washington and New Mexico.

The researchers examined various measures of interpretive volume in relation to screening performance for 120 radiologists who interpreted 783,965 screening mammograms between 2002 and 2006. Volume was measured in four ways: the number of screening and diagnostic mammograms read by a radiologist annually?both separately and in combination?and the ratio of screening to total (diagnostic plus screening) mammograms. Screening performance was measured by sensitivity (the ability to detect all cancers present) and false-positive and cancer detection rates.

The results showed that performance varied not only by the number of exams interpreted, but also by the ratio of screening to total (diagnostic plus screening) mammograms.

“Our analysis demonstrated that screening interpretive performance is unlikely to be affected by volume alone, but rather by a balance in the interpreted exam composition,” Dr. Buist said. “The data suggest that radiologists who interpret screening mammograms should spend at least a portion of their time interpreting diagnostic mammograms, because radiologists who interpreted very few diagnostic mammograms had worse performance, even if they read a high volume of screening mammograms.”

Because the study found that radiologists with higher annual interpretive volumes had lower false-positive rates?while maintaining sensitivity rates similar to their lower-volume colleagues?the researchers simulated the effect of increasing the minimum interpretive volume required of radiologists practicing in the U.S., which is currently 960 mammograms every two years.

Based on 34 million women aged 40-79 receiving screening mammograms each year, the researchers estimated that increasing the annual minimum total volume requirement to 1,000 would result in 43,629 fewer women being recalled. The estimated cost associated with false-positive results would be reduced to $21.8 million.

“Recommending any increase in U.S. volume requirements would entail crucial decisions about the relative importance of cancer detection versus false positive exams and workforce issues, since changes could curtail workforce supply and women’s mammography access,” Dr. Buist said.

SOURCE

Related Articles Read More >

A portrait of Ellen Roche, MIT School of Engineering associate professor
New implant design prevents scar tissue without drugs, MIT says
UMN artificial blood vessel clinical trial
Minnesota researchers awarded $3.7M grant for artificial, bioengineered blood vessel clinical trial
CeQur Simplicity
CeQur is launching a discreet, convenient ‘wearable insulin pen’
Blackrock's Utah array is a miniature array of electrodes for sensing brain signals
Blackrock Neurotech and Pitt work on first at-home BCI system for remote trials

DeviceTalks Weekly.

August 5, 2022
DTW Medtronic's Greg Smith lays out supply chain strategies
See More >

MDO Digital Edition

Digital Edition

Subscribe to Medical Design & Outsourcing. Bookmark, share and interact with the leading medical design engineering magazine today.

MEDTECH 100 INDEX

Medtech 100 logo
Market Summary > Current Price
The MedTech 100 is a financial index calculated using the BIG100 companies covered in Medical Design and Outsourcing.
DeviceTalks

DeviceTalks is a conversation among medical technology leaders. It's events, podcasts, webinars and one-on-one exchanges of ideas & insights.

DeviceTalks

New MedTech Resource

Medical Tubing

Enewsletter Subscriptions

Enewsletter Subscriptions

MassDevice

Mass Device

The Medical Device Business Journal. MassDevice is the leading medical device news business journal telling the stories of the devices that save lives.

Visit Website
MDO ad
Medical Design and Outsourcing
  • MassDevice
  • DeviceTalks
  • MedTech100 Index
  • Medical Tubing + Extrusion
  • Medical Design Sourcing
  • Drug Delivery Business News
  • Drug Discovery & Development
  • Pharmaceutical Processing World
  • R&D World
  • About Us/Contact
  • Advertise With Us
  • Subscribe to Print Magazine
  • Subscribe to E-newsletter
  • Attend our Monthly Webinars
  • Listen to our Weekly Podcasts
  • Join our DeviceTalks Tuesdays Discussion

Copyright © 2022 WTWH Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved. The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of WTWH Media LLC. Site Map | Privacy Policy | RSS

Search Medical Design & Outsourcing

  • Home
  • Medical Device Business
    • Mergers & Acquisitions
    • Financial
    • Regulatory
  • Applications
    • Cardiovascular
    • Devices
    • Imaging
    • Implantables
    • Medical Equipment
    • Orthopedic
    • Surgical
  • Technologies
    • Contract Manufacturing
    • Components
    • Electronics
    • Extrusions
    • Materials
    • Motion Control
    • Prototyping
    • Pumps
    • Tubing
  • Med Tech Resources
    • Subscribe to Print Magazine
    • DeviceTalks Tuesdays
    • Digital Editions
    • eBooks
    • Manufacturer Search
    • Medical Device Handbook
    • MedTech 100 Index
    • Podcasts
    • Print Subscription
    • The Big 100
    • Webinars / Digital Events
    • Whitepapers
    • Video
  • 2022 Leadership in MedTech
    • 2022 Leadership Voting!
    • 2021 Winners
    • 2020 Winners
  • Women in Medtech