Radiologists can detect the ‘gist’ of breast cancer before any overt signs of cancer appear

Radiologists can detect abnormality in mammograms at above-chance levels after a momentary glimpse of an image. The study investigated this instantaneous perception of an abnormality, known as a “gist” response, when 23 radiologists viewed prior mammograms of women that were reported as normal, but later diagnosed with breast cancer at subsequent screening. Five categories of cases were included: current cancer-containing mammograms, current mammograms of the normal breast contralateral to the cancer, prior mammograms of normal cases, prior mammograms with visible cancer signs in a breast from women who were initially reported as normal, but later diagnosed with breast cancer at subsequent screening in the same breast, and prior mammograms without any visible cancer signs from women labelled as initially normal but subsequently diagnosed with cancer. Our findings suggest that readers can distinguish patients who were diagnosed with cancer, from individuals without breast cancer (normal category), at above-chance levels based on a half-second glimpse of the mammogram even before any lesion becomes visible on the mammogram. Although 20 of the 23 radiologists demonstrated this ability, radiologists’ abilities for perceiving the gist of the abnormal varied between the readers and appeared to be linked to expertise. These results could have implications for identifying women of higher than average risk of a future malignancy event, thus impacting upon tailored screening strategies.

[1]  Rebecca A Hubbard,et al.  Increased Risk of Developing Breast Cancer after a False-Positive Screening Mammogram , 2015, Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

[2]  E. Conant,et al.  Breast cancer screening in an era of personalized regimens: A conceptual model and National Cancer Institute initiative for risk‐based and preference‐based approaches at a population level , 2014, Cancer.

[3]  D. Miglioretti,et al.  Individual and Combined Effects of Age, Breast Density, and Hormone Replacement Therapy Use on the Accuracy of Screening Mammography , 2003, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[4]  Karla K. Evans,et al.  The gist of the abnormal: Above-chance medical decision making in the blink of an eye , 2013, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.

[5]  S. Moss,et al.  Interval cancers in the NHS breast cancer screening programme in England, Wales and Northern Ireland , 2011, British Journal of Cancer.

[6]  Allison Yamanashi Leib,et al.  Fast ensemble representations for abstract visual impressions , 2016, Nature Communications.

[7]  B. Emami,et al.  Risk of second primary cancer in the contralateral breast in women treated for early-stage breast cancer: a population-based study. , 2003, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[8]  Richard Sullivan,et al.  The global burden of women’s cancers: a grand challenge in global health , 2017, The Lancet.

[9]  J. Peres Studies support risk-based mammography screening. , 2012, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[10]  Annette Dobson,et al.  Mammography screening and breast cancer mortality in Australia: an aggregate cohort study , 2012, Journal of medical screening.

[11]  S. Leeder,et al.  A population based study , 1993, The Medical journal of Australia.

[12]  B. Bridgeman,et al.  Author ' s personal copy The role of gist in scene recognition , 2008 .

[13]  G. Svane,et al.  Radiological review of incidence breast cancers , 2000, Journal of medical screening.

[14]  X. Castells,et al.  Risk of breast cancer after false‐positive results in mammographic screening , 2016, Cancer medicine.

[15]  C. Hogan Independent review. , 2002, GMHC treatment issues : the Gay Men's Health Crisis newsletter of experimental AIDS therapies.

[16]  R. J. Ferrari,et al.  Segmentation of the fibro-glandular disc in mammogrms using Gaussian mixture modelling , 2004, Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing.

[17]  C. D'Orsi,et al.  Diagnostic Performance of Digital Versus Film Mammography for Breast-Cancer Screening , 2005, The New England journal of medicine.

[18]  A. Ellis Breast , 2002, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[19]  Jeremy M Wolfe,et al.  A half-second glimpse often lets radiologists identify breast cancer cases even when viewing the mammogram of the opposite breast , 2016, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[20]  H L Kundel,et al.  Finding lung nodules with and without comparative visual scanning , 1981, Perception & psychophysics.

[21]  Eugenio Paci,et al.  Breast Cancer Mortality in Mammographic Screening in Europe: A Review of Incidence-Based Mortality Studies , 2012, Journal of medical screening.

[22]  Andrew D. A. Maidment,et al.  Diagnostic accuracy of digital mammography in patients with dense breasts who underwent problem-solving mammography: effects of image processing and lesion type. , 2003, Radiology.

[23]  W E Barlow,et al.  Performance assessment for radiologists interpreting screening mammography , 2007, Statistics in medicine.

[24]  D. Altman,et al.  The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review , 2012, British Journal of Cancer.

[25]  P. Perona,et al.  What do we perceive in a glance of a real-world scene? , 2007, Journal of vision.

[26]  Bruce Bridgeman,et al.  The role of gist in scene recognition , 2008, Vision Research.

[27]  Guang-Zhong Yang,et al.  Image Perception , 2007, EURASIP J. Adv. Signal Process..

[28]  R. Birdwell,et al.  Diagnostic Performance of Digital Versus Film Mammography for Breast-Cancer Screening , 2006 .

[29]  H L Kundel,et al.  Interpreting chest radiographs without visual search. , 1975, Radiology.