[Proficiency test in clinical mammography. Results of a consecutive series of 130 volunteer Italian radiologists].
OBJECTIVE
We evaluated the results obtained by 130 Italian radiologists undergoing a proficiency test of clinical mammography.


METHODS
Radiologists were invited to report a series of 100 mammograms (two views), including 32 cancers and 78 non-cancers, with limited information regarding age, subjective symptoms, and findings at palpation. Sensitivity and specificity were then calculated. The test was validated by a panel of experts, and standards for test sufficiency were established on that basis (sensitivity > 80%, specificity > 85%). The tested radiologists differed by mammographic practice (average = 5.7 years, range 0.5-18), total number of mammograms read (average = 8,784, range 300-50,000) and per year (average = 1,535 range 300-5,000).


RESULTS
Sensitivity (standard > 80%, average 81.1%, range 39-100%) and specificity (standard > 85%, average 84.0%, range 38-98%) standards were reached by 79 (60.8%) and 81 (62.3%) radiologists, respectively. Overall, only 37 (28.5%) radiologists passed the test (reached both standards). Mammographic practice (years of experience) (chi 2 for trend 5.26, p = 0.02), total mammograms read (chi 2 5.86, p = 0.05), and mammograms read per year (chi 2 8.07, p = 0.01) significantly correlated with a sufficient test.


CONCLUSIONS
The evaluated sample is rather large but not necessarily representative of Italian radiologists. Had the sample been selected, there is no way to know if the results would have been biased towards a better or worse figure with respect to the national average. A significant correlation was found with reading experience (the best results were obtained by operators with > 10,000 films read and with > 2,000 films read/year), as which is important because most Italian radiologists reporting mammography usually read a limited number of cases.


CONCLUSIONS
These results on such a wide sample of radiologists, possibly representative of the national average, are disappointing, and suggest that the average quality of mammography reporting in Italy may not be up to standards. Thus, we suggest that quality control program for clinical mammography not only test the equipment but include training and accreditation of radiologists.
Ciatto
S
S
Centro per lo Studio e la Prevenzione Oncologica, Firenze. careggi@tin.it
Andreoli
C
C
Di Maggio
C
C
D002983:Clinical Competence; D006801:Humans; D007558:Italy; D008327:Mammography / Q000592:standards; D011786:Quality Control; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity