Number of mammography cases read per year is a strong predictor of sensitivity

Abstract. Early detection of breast cancers affects the 5-year recurrence rates and treatment options for diagnosed patients, and consequently, many countries have instituted nationwide screening programs. This study compared the performance of expert radiologists from Australia and the United States in detection of breast cancer. Forty-one radiologists, 21 from Australia and 20 from the United States, reviewed 30 mammographic cases containing two-view mammograms. Twenty cases had abnormal findings and 10 cases had normal findings. Radiologists were asked to locate malignancies and assign a level of confidence. A jackknife free-response receiver operating characteristic, figure of merit (JAFROC, FOM), inferred receiver operating characteristic, area under curve (ROC, AUC), specificity, sensitivity, and location sensitivity were calculated using Ziltron software and JAFROC v4.1. A Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the performance of Australian and U.S. radiologists. The results showed that when experience and the number of mammograms read per year were taken into account, the Australian radiologists sampled showed significantly higher sensitivity and location sensitivity (p≤0.001). JAFROC (FOM) and inferred ROC (AUC) analysis showed no difference between the overall performance of the two countries. ROC (AUC) and location sensitivity were higher for the Australian radiologists who read the most cases per year.

[1]  L J Yeoman,et al.  Screening interval breast cancers: mammographic features and prognosis factors. , 1996, Radiology.

[2]  Warwick B. Lee,et al.  Markers of good performance in mammography depend on number of annual readings. , 2013, Radiology.

[3]  Karla Kerlikowske,et al.  Comparing the performance of mammography screening in the USA and the UK , 2005, Journal of medical screening.

[4]  Karla Kerlikowske,et al.  Comparison of screening mammography in the United States and the United kingdom. , 2003, JAMA.

[5]  K. Kerlikowske,et al.  Efficacy of screening mammography among women aged 40 to 49 years and 50 to 69 years: comparison of relative and absolute benefit. , 1997, Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs.

[6]  Warwick B. Lee,et al.  Screening mammography: test set data can reasonably describe actual clinical reporting. , 2013, Radiology.

[7]  Craig A. Beam,et al.  Variability in the interpretation of screening mammograms by US radiologists. Findings from a national sample. , 1996, Archives of internal medicine.

[8]  L. Tabár,et al.  The Swedish Two-County Trial twenty years later. Updated mortality results and new insights from long-term follow-up. , 2000, Radiologic clinics of North America.

[9]  Helen C. Cowley,et al.  Improving the accuracy of mammography: volume and outcome relationships. , 2002, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[10]  Richard J. K. Taylor,et al.  Mammography Screening and Breast Cancer Mortality in New South Wales, Australia , 2004, Cancer Causes & Control.

[11]  Rangaraj M. Rangayyan,et al.  Detection of architectural distortion in prior mammograms using fractal analysis and angular spread of power , 2010, Medical Imaging.

[12]  Patrick C. Brennan,et al.  Breast Screen New South Wales Generally Demonstrates Good Radiologic Viewing Conditions , 2013, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[13]  S. Lange,et al.  Adjusting for multiple testing--when and how? , 2001, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[14]  M. Salmeri,et al.  Bilateral asymmetry identification for the early detection of breast cancer , 2011, 2011 IEEE International Symposium on Medical Measurements and Applications.

[15]  M F McEntee,et al.  On the choice of acceptance radius in free-response observer performance studies. , 2013, The British journal of radiology.

[16]  Warwick B. Lee,et al.  Malignancy detection in digital mammograms: important reader characteristics and required case numbers. , 2010, Academic radiology.

[17]  J. Elmore,et al.  Does diagnostic accuracy in mammography depend on radiologists' experience? , 1998, Journal of women's health.

[18]  H. Lynch,et al.  Psychologic Aspects of Cancer Genetic Testing: A Research Update for Clinicians , 1997 .

[19]  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.

[20]  J. J. Gisvold,et al.  Likelihood of malignant disease for various categories of mammographically detected, nonpalpable breast lesions. , 1993, Mayo Clinic proceedings.

[21]  B. Monsees,et al.  The Mammography Quality Standards Act. An overview of the regulations and guidance. , 2000, Radiologic clinics of North America.

[22]  L. Tabár,et al.  The impact of organized mammography service screening on breast carcinoma mortality in seven Swedish counties , 2002, Cancer.

[23]  Ingvar Andersson,et al.  Long-term effects of mammography screening: updated overview of the Swedish randomised trials , 2002, The Lancet.