Eleni Michalopoulou , Iain Darker , Valentina Iotti , Efrat Slonim , Harry J. de Koning , Rodrigo Alcantara Souza , Jean-Benoit Burrion , Sandrine De Montgolfier , Cécile Vissac-Sabatier , Michal Guindy , Pierpaolo Pattacini , Suzette Delaloge , Fiona J. Gilbert , Yan Chen , the MyPeBS Consortium
{"title":"Breast imaging readers’ performance in the PERFORMS test-set based assessment scheme within the MyPeBS international randomised study","authors":"Eleni Michalopoulou , Iain Darker , Valentina Iotti , Efrat Slonim , Harry J. de Koning , Rodrigo Alcantara Souza , Jean-Benoit Burrion , Sandrine De Montgolfier , Cécile Vissac-Sabatier , Michal Guindy , Pierpaolo Pattacini , Suzette Delaloge , Fiona J. Gilbert , Yan Chen , the MyPeBS Consortium","doi":"10.1016/j.ejrad.2025.111938","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>A survey conducted by the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI) in 2023 revealed significant variations in Quality Assurance (QA) practices across Europe. The UK encourages regular performance monitoring for screen readers. This study aimed to assess the variability in diagnostic performance among readers participating in a wider prospective randomised trial across multiple countries.</div></div><div><h3>Method</h3><div>In this retrospective multinational study, breast imaging readers from the MyPeBS clinical trial examined a test set of 40 challenging breast screening cases using the PERFORMS software, from March 2021 to February 2022. The challenging set, enriched with biopsy-proven cancers, aimed to differentiate readers by their level of diagnostic performance. Cancer detection and correct return to screen rates were calculated for each participant.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>A total of 110 readers from 6 countries completed the PERFORMS test set, while 88 also completed an accompanying questionnaire collecting information about their breast screening work and experience. The study revealed variability in cancer detection rates (M = 73.6 %, SD = 19.7 %, range 0.0 %–100.0 %) and correct return to screen rates (M = 79.7 %, SD = 10.5 %, range 46.4 %–100.0 %). Outliers with extremely low cancer detection (2.7 % of participants) and correct return to screen rates (1.8 % of participants) were also identified.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Breast imaging readers’ performance in test set-based assessments like PERFORMS can reflect real-world screening proficiency. The presence of outlier readers with low diagnostic performance on the test highlights the need for double reading and for standardised QA protocols to ensure patient safety and service efficiency.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":12063,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Radiology","volume":"183 ","pages":"Article 111938"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0720048X25000245","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose
A survey conducted by the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI) in 2023 revealed significant variations in Quality Assurance (QA) practices across Europe. The UK encourages regular performance monitoring for screen readers. This study aimed to assess the variability in diagnostic performance among readers participating in a wider prospective randomised trial across multiple countries.
Method
In this retrospective multinational study, breast imaging readers from the MyPeBS clinical trial examined a test set of 40 challenging breast screening cases using the PERFORMS software, from March 2021 to February 2022. The challenging set, enriched with biopsy-proven cancers, aimed to differentiate readers by their level of diagnostic performance. Cancer detection and correct return to screen rates were calculated for each participant.
Results
A total of 110 readers from 6 countries completed the PERFORMS test set, while 88 also completed an accompanying questionnaire collecting information about their breast screening work and experience. The study revealed variability in cancer detection rates (M = 73.6 %, SD = 19.7 %, range 0.0 %–100.0 %) and correct return to screen rates (M = 79.7 %, SD = 10.5 %, range 46.4 %–100.0 %). Outliers with extremely low cancer detection (2.7 % of participants) and correct return to screen rates (1.8 % of participants) were also identified.
Conclusions
Breast imaging readers’ performance in test set-based assessments like PERFORMS can reflect real-world screening proficiency. The presence of outlier readers with low diagnostic performance on the test highlights the need for double reading and for standardised QA protocols to ensure patient safety and service efficiency.
期刊介绍:
European Journal of Radiology is an international journal which aims to communicate to its readers, state-of-the-art information on imaging developments in the form of high quality original research articles and timely reviews on current developments in the field.
Its audience includes clinicians at all levels of training including radiology trainees, newly qualified imaging specialists and the experienced radiologist. Its aim is to inform efficient, appropriate and evidence-based imaging practice to the benefit of patients worldwide.