CORRESPONDENCE

Re: Accuracy of Screening Mammography Interpretation by Characteristics of Radiologists

Robert Clark

Correspondence to: Robert Clark, MD, Seven Rivers Regional Medical Center, 2020 NW 15th St., Crystal River, FL 34428 (e-mail: rclarkmd{at}tampabay.rr.com).

I enjoyed the excellent study by Barlow et al. (1), demonstrating that there is no evidence that greater volume or experience at interpreting mammograms is associated with better performance. The common wisdom has always been contrary to these results. In fact, the Mammography Quality Standards Act (MQSA) contains at least two requirements based on the dogma that increasing volume and experience improve performance: 1) minimum annual interpretation volume (480 per year) and 2) continuing education in mammography interpretation (15 hours per triennium). Perhaps I am showing my age, or revealing my crankiness, but I arrived at three very different conclusions from the study.

NOTES

Editor's note: Barlow et al. declined to respond.

REFERENCES

(1) Barlow WE, Chi C, Carney PA, Taplin SH, D'Orsi C, Cutter G, et al. Accuracy of screening mammography interpretation by characteristics of radiologists. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004;96:1840–50.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

(2) Smart CR, Byrne C, Smith RA, Garfinkel L, Letton AH, Dodd GD, et al. Twenty-year follow-up of the breast cancers diagnosed during the Breast Cancer Detection Demonstration Project. CA Cancer J Clin 1997;47: 134–49.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

(3) Rosenberg RD, Lando JF, Hunt WC, Darling RR, Williamson MR, et al. The New Mexico Mammography Project. Screening mammography performance in Albuquerque, New Mexico, 1991 to 1993. Cancer 1997;78: 1731–9.[CrossRef][ISI]



             
Copyright © 2005 Oxford University Press (unless otherwise stated)
Oxford University Press Privacy Policy and Legal Statement