The impact of clinical history on mammographic interpretations

J. G. Elmore, C. K. Wells, D. H. Howard and A. R. Feinstein
Department of Internal Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, USA. jelmore@u.washington.edu

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether mammographic interpretations are biased by the patient's clinical history. DESIGN: On 2 occasions, separated by a 5-month wash-out period, 10 radiologists read mammograms for the same 100 women, randomly divided into 2 groups of 50. For 1 group, the clinical history was supplied for the first reading and omitted (except for age) for the second reading. This sequence was reversed in the other group. In addition, 5 cases were shown a third time with a deliberately leading sham history. PATIENTS: Selected with stratified random sampling from 3 categories of diagnostic findings (64 had mammographic abnormalities) and from the definitive designation of breast cancer or no breast cancer (18 had breast cancer). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Radiologists' diagnostic accuracy and directional changes in interpretations and recommendations between the 2 readings. RESULTS: The direction suggested by the history led to small but consistent changes in the interpretations. Overall diagnostic accuracy was not altered, but recommendations were affected for appropriate further diagnostic workup: an alerting history (eg, breast symptoms or family history of breast cancer) increased the number of workups recommended in patients without cancer (P=.01); and a nonalerting history led to fewer recommended workups in the cancer patients (P=.02). The direction of the sham histories led an average of 4 of the 10 radiologists to change previous diagnoses and an average of 1 radiologist to change a previous biopsy recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge of the clinical history may alter a radiologist's level of diagnostic suspicion without improving performance in either diagnosis or management recommendations.

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Lesion and Patient Characteristics Associated with Malignancy After a Probably Benign Finding on Community Practice Mammography
Lehman et al.
Am. J. Roentgenol. 2008;190:511-515.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Mammographers' Perception of Women's Breast Cancer Risk
Egger et al.
Med Decis Making 2005;25:283-289.
ABSTRACT  

Physician Predictors of Mammographic Accuracy
Smith-Bindman et al.
JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst 2005;97:358-367.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Breast cancer screening, diagnostic accuracy and health care policies
Urbain
CMAJ 2005;172:210-211.
FULL TEXT  

Accuracy of Diagnostic Tests Read With and Without Clinical Information: A Systematic Review
Loy and Irwig
JAMA 2004;292:1602-1609.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Radiographs in the Office: Is a Second Reading Always Needed?
Smith et al.
J Am Board Fam Med 2004;17:256-263.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Sources of Variation and Bias in Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy: A Systematic Review
Whiting et al.
ANN INTERN MED 2004;140:189-202.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Performance of Diagnostic Mammography for Women With Signs or Symptoms of Breast Cancer
Barlow et al.
JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94:1151-1159.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Performance of Screening Mammography among Women with and without a First-Degree Relative with Breast Cancer
Kerlikowske et al.
ANN INTERN MED 2000;133:855-863.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Predicting the Cumulative Risk of False-Positive Mammograms
Christiansen et al.
JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:1657-1666.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Assessing the Risk of Breast Cancer
Rhoads et al.
NEJM 2000;342:2002-2003.
FULL TEXT  

Interobserver Variability in Applying a Radiographic Definition for ARDS
Rubenfeld et al.
Chest 1999;116:1347-1353.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The Power of Suggestion: Do Histories Bias Mammogram Readings?
JWatch Women's Health 1997;1997:6-6.
FULL TEXT