Premium
Impact of Breast Reader Assessment Strategy on mammographic radiologists' test reading performance
Author(s) -
Suleiman Wasfi I,
Rawashdeh Mohammad A,
Lewis Sarah J,
McEntee Mark F,
Lee Warwick,
Tapia Kriscia,
Brennan Patrick C
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
journal of medical imaging and radiation oncology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.31
H-Index - 43
eISSN - 1754-9485
pISSN - 1754-9477
DOI - 10.1111/1754-9485.12461
Subject(s) - medicine , mammography , wilcoxon signed rank test , breast cancer , radiology , test (biology) , receiver operating characteristic , breast imaging , medical physics , mann–whitney u test , cancer , paleontology , biology
The detection of breast cancer is somewhat limited by human factors, and thus there is a need to improve reader performance. This study assesses whether radiologists who regularly undertake the education in the form of the Breast Reader Assessment Strategy ( BREAST ) demonstrate any changes in mammography interpretation performance over time. Methods In 2011, 2012 and 2013, 14 radiologists independently assessed a year‐specific BREAST mammographic test‐set. Radiologists read a different single test‐set once each year, with each comprising 60 digital mammogram cases. Radiologists marked the location of suspected lesions without computer‐aided diagnosis ( CAD ) and assigned a confidence rating of 2 for benign and 3–5 for malignant lesions. The mean sensitivity, specificity, location sensitivity, JAFROC FOM and ROC AUC were calculated. A Kruskal–Wallis test was used to compare the readings for the 14 radiologists across the 3 years. Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to assess comparison between pairs of years. Relationships between changes in performance and radiologist characteristics were examined using a Spearman's test. Results Significant increases were noted in mean sensitivity ( P = 0.01), specificity ( P = 0.01), location sensitivity ( P = 0.001) and JAFROC FOM ( P = 0.001) between 2011 and 2012. Between 2012 and 2013, significant improvements were noted in mean sensitivity ( P = 0.003), specificity ( P = 0.002), location sensitivity ( P = 0.02), JAFROC FOM ( P = 0.005) and ROC AUC ( P = 0.008). No statistically significant correlations were shown between the levels of improvement and radiologists' characteristics. Conclusion Radiologists' who undertake the BREAST programme demonstrate significant improvements in test‐set performance during a 3‐year period, highlighting the value of ongoing education through the use of test‐set.