Malignancy detection in digital mammograms: important reader characteristics and required case numbers.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES To determine the relationship between heightened levels of reader performance and reader practice in terms of number of cases read and previous experience. MATERIALS AND METHODS A test set of mammograms was developed comprising 50 cases. These cases consisted of 15 abnormals (biopsy proven) and 35 normals (confirmed at subsequent rescreen). Sixty-nine breast image readers reviewed these cases independently and their performance was measured by recording their individual receiver operating characteristic score (area under the curve), sensitivity, and specificity. These measures of performance were then compared to a range of factors relating to the reader such as years of certification and reporting, number of cases read per year, previous experiences, and satisfaction levels. Correlation analyses using Spearman methods were performed along with the Mann-Whitney test to detect differences in performance between specific reader groups. RESULTS Improved reader performance was found for years certified (P = .004), years of experience (P = .0001), and hours reading per week (P = .003) shown by positive statistical significant relationships with Az values (area under receiver operating characteristic curve). Statistical comparisons of Az values scored for individuals who read varying number of cases per year showed that those individuals whose annual mammographic case load was 5000 or more (P = .03) or between 2000 and 4999 (P = .05), had statistically significantly higher scores than those who read less than 1000 cases per year. CONCLUSION The results of this study have shown variations in reader performance relating to parameters of reader practice and experience. Levels of variance are shown and potential acceptance levels for diagnostic efficacy are proposed which may inform policy makers, judicial systems and public debate.

[1]  Andrew Page,et al.  Cancer detection and mammogram volume of radiologists in a population-based screening programme. , 2006, Breast.

[2]  A. Mushlin,et al.  Estimating the accuracy of screening mammography: a meta-analysis. , 1998, American journal of preventive medicine.

[3]  C. Rutter,et al.  Assessing mammographers' accuracy. A comparison of clinical and test performance. , 2000, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[4]  David J Manning,et al.  Ambient lighting: effect of illumination on soft-copy viewing of radiographs of the wrist. , 2007, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[5]  R. Sievert,et al.  Book Reviews : Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (as amended 1959 and revised 1962). I.C.R.P. Publication 6. 70 pp. PERGAMON PRESS. Oxford, London and New York, 1964. £1 5s. 0d. [TB/54] , 1964 .

[6]  R. F. Wagner,et al.  The place of medical image perception in 21st-century health care. , 2006, Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR.

[7]  P. Brennan,et al.  Reader practice in mammography screen reporting in Australia , 2009, Journal of medical imaging and radiation oncology.

[8]  B. Wall,et al.  Radiation exposure of the UK population from medical and dental X-ray examinations. , 2001 .

[9]  K Faulkner,et al.  Risk factors for induction of breast cancer by X-rays and their implications for breast screening. , 2007, The British journal of radiology.

[10]  P C Brennan,et al.  Viewing conditions for diagnostic images in three major Dublin hospitals: a comparison with WHO and CEC recommendations. , 2003, The British journal of radiology.

[11]  J Isola,et al.  The visibility of cancer on previous mammograms in retrospective review. , 2001, Clinical radiology.

[12]  B. Wall,et al.  Revised radiation doses for typical X-ray examinations. Report on a recent review of doses to patients from medical X-ray examinations in the UK by NRPB. National Radiological Protection Board. , 1997, The British journal of radiology.

[13]  C. D'Orsi,et al.  Diagnostic Performance of Digital versus Film Mammography for Breast-Cancer Screening , 2006 .

[14]  Robert Kerrin Hills,et al.  Research on Cancer , 1925, Nature.

[15]  John Harding,et al.  Cancer survival and prevalence in Australia: cancers diagnosed from 1982 to 2004 , 2008 .

[16]  E A Sickles,et al.  Standardized abnormal interpretation and cancer detection ratios to assess reading volume and reader performance in a breast screening program. , 2000, Radiology.