Monday, November 28 | 11:40 a.m.-11:50 a.m. | RC215-16 | Arie Crown Theater
Radiologists are hitting certain breast screening benchmarks, but there's room for improvement, concluded researchers from Massachusetts General Hospital.A team led by Dr. Constance Lehman, PhD, measured the performance of 359 radiologists reading digital screening mammograms across 95 facilities in six Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) registries. The study data included 1.6 million digital screening mammograms performed between 2007 and 2013. The group calculated performance measures according to the American College of Radiology's BI-RADS Atlas (5th edition) and compared them with benchmarks previously published by the BCSC and the National Mammography Database.
Mean performance measures were as follows:
- Abnormal interpretation rate: 11.6%
- Cancers detected per 1,000 screens: 5.1
- Sensitivity: 86.9%
- Specificity: 88.9%
- False-negative rate per 1,000 screens: 0.8
- Positive predictive value for recall: 4.4%
- Positive predictive value for biopsy: 28.6%
Although 92.1% of radiologists achieved recommended cancer detection rates and 97.1% achieved recommended ranges for sensitivity, only 59% achieved recommended abnormal interpretation rates, and 63% achieved recommended specificity.
The bottom line is that there's room for improvement, Lehman and colleagues concluded.
"The majority of radiologists in the BCSC surpass performance recommendations for screening mammography; however, abnormal interpretation rates continue to be higher and specificity lower than the recommended rates for almost half of radiologists interpreting screening mammograms," they wrote. "Efforts to implement advanced technology should be combined with effective educational programs to reduce false-positive rates without sacrificing high detection rates of invasive cancers."











![A normal mammogram confirmed by three-year radiologic follow-up illustrates reader-marked regions of interest (ROIs) during (A) unaided (round 1) and (B) artificial intelligence (AI)–assisted (round 2) reading. Each colored dot represents an ROI for recall by a human reader. Readers could mark more than one ROI per case, represented by multiple dots of the same color. During AI-assisted reading, the AI system displayed three visible prompts: two with suspicion of malignancy scores of 35% (left mediolateral oblique [L MLO] and craniocaudal [L CC]) and one with a suspicion of malignancy score of 10% (right craniocaudal [R CC]), shown as polygonal overlays. Without AI, six of 10 readers (60%) marked a false-positive ROI. With AI assistance, this fell to two of 10 (20%). R MLO = right mediolateral oblique.](https://img.auntminnie.com/mindful/smg/workspaces/default/uploads/2026/07/2026-07-14-radiology-mammogram-ai-auto-bias.H0bYO8QlWs.jpg?auto=format%2Ccompress&fit=crop&h=112&q=70&w=112)






