Prior mammogram review may affect the performance of radiology trainees in identifying breast cancers and normal cases

S. Lewis, Tong Li, N. Borecky, P. Brennan, Melissa L. Barron, P. Trieu
{"title":"Prior mammogram review may affect the performance of radiology trainees in identifying breast cancers and normal cases","authors":"S. Lewis, Tong Li, N. Borecky, P. Brennan, Melissa L. Barron, P. Trieu","doi":"10.1117/12.2624189","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: To study the effect on radiology trainees’ observer performance through the availability of prior screening mammograms as part of seven unique education test sets. Methods: Australian radiology trainees (n=150) completed 469 readings of seven educational test sets (each set with 60 cases, 40 normal and 20 cancer cases). The percentage of cases with a prior screening mammogram was 68.7%. Mammographic density (MD) evaluated via BIRADS was spread across the test sets, with 40.5% having 25-50% glandular tissue (BIRADS “B”), 37.4% of cases having 50-75% or “C”, 12.6% have a >75% MD and 9.5% having the lowest MD rating “A”. Trainees were asked to score the cases on a scale of 1 (normal), 2 (benign), 3 (equivocal findings), 4 (suspicious finding) and 5 (highly suggestive malignancy). Mann-Whitney U was used to compare the specificity and sensitivity of radiology trainees among cases with and without prior images. Results: Radiology trainees had significantly higher sensitivity across all MD levels when prior images were not available (A-B, P=0.006; C-D, P=0.027). Specificity was also significantly higher for cases of high (C-D) MD without prior images compared with priors available by trainees who read less than 20 cases per week (P=0.008). Conclusions: In a simulated environment, radiology trainees achieved better results in cases without prior images, especially for those who read less than 20 cases per week. The utility of prior case inclusion when providing education and training in reading screening mammograms needs to be revisited, especially for women with high MD.","PeriodicalId":92005,"journal":{"name":"Breast imaging : 11th International Workshop, IWDM 2012, Philadelphia, PA, USA, July 8-11, 2012 : proceedings. International Workshop on Breast Imaging (11th : 2012 : Philadelphia, Pa.)","volume":"21 1","pages":"1228611 - 1228611-6"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Breast imaging : 11th International Workshop, IWDM 2012, Philadelphia, PA, USA, July 8-11, 2012 : proceedings. International Workshop on Breast Imaging (11th : 2012 : Philadelphia, Pa.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2624189","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To study the effect on radiology trainees’ observer performance through the availability of prior screening mammograms as part of seven unique education test sets. Methods: Australian radiology trainees (n=150) completed 469 readings of seven educational test sets (each set with 60 cases, 40 normal and 20 cancer cases). The percentage of cases with a prior screening mammogram was 68.7%. Mammographic density (MD) evaluated via BIRADS was spread across the test sets, with 40.5% having 25-50% glandular tissue (BIRADS “B”), 37.4% of cases having 50-75% or “C”, 12.6% have a >75% MD and 9.5% having the lowest MD rating “A”. Trainees were asked to score the cases on a scale of 1 (normal), 2 (benign), 3 (equivocal findings), 4 (suspicious finding) and 5 (highly suggestive malignancy). Mann-Whitney U was used to compare the specificity and sensitivity of radiology trainees among cases with and without prior images. Results: Radiology trainees had significantly higher sensitivity across all MD levels when prior images were not available (A-B, P=0.006; C-D, P=0.027). Specificity was also significantly higher for cases of high (C-D) MD without prior images compared with priors available by trainees who read less than 20 cases per week (P=0.008). Conclusions: In a simulated environment, radiology trainees achieved better results in cases without prior images, especially for those who read less than 20 cases per week. The utility of prior case inclusion when providing education and training in reading screening mammograms needs to be revisited, especially for women with high MD.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
先前的乳房x光检查可能会影响放射学实习生在识别乳腺癌和正常病例方面的表现
目的:研究作为七个独特教育测试集的一部分,预先筛查乳房x线照片的可用性对放射学受训人员观察表现的影响。方法:澳大利亚放射学学员150例,完成7组教育测试(每组60例,40例正常,20例癌症)的469次阅读。有过乳房x光筛查的病例占68.7%。通过BIRADS评估的乳腺密度(MD)分布在各个测试集,40.5%的病例有25-50%的腺体组织(BIRADS“B”),37.4%的病例有50-75%或“C”,12.6%的病例有>75%的MD, 9.5%的病例有最低的MD评级为“a”。受训者被要求按1(正常),2(良性),3(模棱两可的发现),4(可疑发现)和5(高度暗示的恶性肿瘤)的等级对病例进行评分。使用Mann-Whitney U来比较有和没有先前图像的病例中放射学受训人员的特异性和敏感性。结果:在没有先前图像的情况下,放射学培训生在所有MD水平上都具有显著更高的敏感性(A-B, P=0.006;c - d, P = 0.027)。与每周阅读少于20例的学员相比,没有先前图像的高(C-D) MD病例的特异性也显着更高(P=0.008)。结论:在模拟环境下,放射学实习生在没有事先图像的情况下取得了更好的效果,特别是对于每周阅读少于20例的病例。在提供阅读筛查乳房x光检查的教育和培训时,既往病例纳入的效用需要重新审视,特别是对于高MD的妇女。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Robustness of a U-net model for different image processing types in segmentation of the mammary gland region Lesion detection in contrast enhanced spectral mammography Correspondence between areas causing recall in breast cancer screening and artificial intelligence findings Lesion detection in digital breast tomosynthesis: method, experiences and results of participating to the DBTex challenge Breast shape estimation and correction in CESM biopsy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1