The American college of radiology’s mammography interpretive skills assessment (MISA) examination

Educational interventions to improve screening mammography interpretation: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

The objective of our study was to conduct a randomized controlled trial of educational interventions that were created to improve performance of screening mammography interpretation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We randomly assigned physicians who interpret mammography to one of three groups: self-paced DVD, live expert-led educational seminar, or control. The DVD and seminar interventions used mammography cases of varying difficulty and provided associated teaching points. Interpretive performance was compared using a pretest-posttest design. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV) were calculated relative to two outcomes: cancer status and consensus of three experts about recall. The performance measures for each group were compared using logistic regression adjusting for pretest performance.

RESULTS

One hundred two radiologists completed all aspects of the trial. After adjustment for preintervention performance, the odds of improved sensitivity for correctly identifying a lesion relative to expert recall were 1.34 times higher for DVD participants than for control subjects (95% CI, 1.00-1.81; p = 0.050). The odds of an improved PPV for correctly identifying a lesion relative to both expert recall (odds ratio [OR] = 1.94; 95% CI, 1.24-3.05; p = 0.004) and cancer status (OR = 1.81; 95% CI, 1.01-3.23; p = 0.045) were significantly improved for DVD participants compared with control subjects, with no significant change in specificity. For the seminar group, specificity was significantly lower than the control group (OR relative to expert recall = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.64-1.00; p = 0.048; OR relative to cancer status = 0.79; 95% CI, 0.65-0.95; p = 0.015).

CONCLUSION

In this randomized controlled trial, the DVD educational intervention resulted in a significant improvement in screening mammography interpretive performance on a test set, which could translate into improved interpretative performance in clinical practice.

Feasibility and acceptability of conducting a randomized clinical trial designed to improve interpretation of screening mammography

PURPOSE

To describe recruitment, enrollment, and participation in a study of US radiologists invited to participate in a randomized controlled trial of two continuing medical education (CME) interventions designed to improve interpretation of screening mammography.

METHODS

We collected recruitment, consent, and intervention-completion information as part of a large study involving radiologists in California, Oregon, Washington, New Mexico, New Hampshire, North Carolina, and Vermont. Consenting radiologists were randomized to receive either a 1-day live, expert-led educational session; to receive a self-paced DVD with similar content; or to a control group (delayed intervention). The impact of the interventions was assessed using a preintervention-postintervention test set design. All activities were institutional review board approved and HIPAA compliant.

RESULTS

Of 403 eligible radiologists, 151 of 403 (37.5%) consented to participate in the trial and 119 of 151 (78.8%) completed the preintervention test set, leaving 119 available for randomization to one of the two intervention groups or to controls. Female radiologists were more likely than male radiologists to consent to and complete the study (P = .03). Consenting radiologists who completed all study activities were more likely to have been interpreting mammography for 10 years or less compared to radiologists who consented and did not complete all study activities or did not consent at all. The live intervention group was more likely to report their intent to change their clinical practice as a result of the intervention compared to those who received the DVD (50% versus 17.6%, P = .02). The majority of participants in both interventions groups felt the interventions were a useful way to receive CME mammography credits.

CONCLUSIONS

Community radiologists found interactive interventions designed to improve interpretative mammography performance acceptable and useful for clinical practice. This suggests CME credits for radiologists should, in part, be for examining practice skills.

Establishing a gold standard for test sets: variation in interpretive agreement of expert mammographers

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Test sets for assessing and improving radiologic image interpretation have been used for decades and typically evaluate performance relative to gold standard interpretations by experts. To assess test sets for screening mammography, a gold standard for whether a woman should be recalled for additional workup is needed, given that interval cancers may be occult on mammography and some findings ultimately determined to be benign require additional imaging to determine if biopsy is warranted. Using experts to set a gold standard assumes little variation occurs in their interpretations, but this has not been explicitly studied in mammography.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using digitized films from 314 screening mammography exams (n = 143 cancer cases) performed in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, we evaluated interpretive agreement among three expert radiologists who independently assessed whether each examination should be recalled, and the lesion location, finding type (mass, calcification, asymmetric density, or architectural distortion), and interpretive difficulty in the recalled images.

RESULTS

Agreement among the three expert pairs for recall/no recall was higher for cancer cases (mean 74.3 ± 6.5) than for noncancers (mean 62.6 ± 7.1). Complete agreement on recall, lesion location, finding type and difficulty ranged from 36.4% to 42.0% for cancer cases and from 43.9% to 65.6% for noncancer cases. Two of three experts agreed on recall and lesion location for 95.1% of cancer cases and 91.8% of noncancer cases, but all three experts agreed on only 55.2% of cancer cases and 42.1% of noncancer cases.

CONCLUSION

Variability in expert interpretive is notable. A minimum of three independent experts combined with a consensus should be used for establishing any gold standard interpretation for test sets, especially for noncancer cases.

The ACR BI-RADS experience: learning from history

The Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) initiative, instituted by the ACR, was begun in the late 1980s to address a lack of standardization and uniformity in mammography practice reporting. An important component of the BI-RADS initiative is the lexicon, a dictionary of descriptors of specific imaging features. The BI-RADS lexicon has always been data driven, using descriptors that previously had been shown in the literature to be predictive of benign and malignant disease. Once established, the BI-RADS lexicon provided new opportunities for quality assurance, communication, research, and improved patient care. The history of this lexicon illustrates a series of challenges and instructive successes that provide a valuable guide for other groups that aspire to develop similar lexicons in the future.

Radiologist characteristics associated with interpretive performance of diagnostic mammography

BACKGROUND

Extensive variability has been noted in the interpretive performance of screening mammography; however, less is known about variability in diagnostic mammography performance.

METHODS

We examined the performance of 123 radiologists who interpreted 35895 diagnostic mammography examinations that were obtained to evaluate a breast problem from January 1, 1996, through December 31, 2003, at 72 facilities that contribute data to the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. We modeled the influence of radiologist characteristics on the sensitivity and false-positive rate of diagnostic mammography, adjusting for patient characteristics by use of a Bayesian hierarchical logistic regression model.

RESULTS

The median sensitivity was 79% (range = 27%-100%) and the median false-positive rate was 4.3% (range = 0%-16%). Radiologists in academic medical centers, compared with other radiologists, had higher sensitivity (88%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 77% to 94%, versus 76%, 95% CI = 72% to 79%; odds ratio [OR] = 5.41, 95% Bayesian posterior credible interval [BPCI] = 1.55 to 21.51) with a smaller increase in their false-positive rates (7.8%, 95% CI = 4.8% to 12.7%, versus 4.2%, 95% CI = 3.8% to 4.7%; OR = 1.73, 95% BPCI = 1.05 to 2.67) and a borderline statistically significant improvement in accuracy (OR = 3.01, 95% BPCI = 0.97 to 12.15). Radiologists spending 20% or more of their time on breast imaging had statistically significantly higher sensitivity than those spending less time on breast imaging (80%, 95% CI = 76% to 83%, versus 70%, 95% CI = 64% to 75%; OR = 1.60, 95% BPCI = 1.05 to 2.44) with non-statistically significant increased false-positive rates (4.6%, 95% CI = 4.0% to 5.3%, versus 3.9%, 95% CI = 3.3% to 4.6%; OR = 1.17, 95% BPCI = 0.92 to 1.51). More recent training in mammography and more experience performing breast biopsy examinations were associated with a decreased threshold for recalling patients, resulting in similar statistically significant increases in both sensitivity and false-positive rates.

CONCLUSIONS

We found considerable variation in the interpretive performance of diagnostic mammography across radiologists that was not explained by the characteristics of the patients whose mammograms were interpreted. This variability is concerning and likely affects many women with and without breast cancer.