Mammographic detection of breast cancer in a non-screening country

Look how far we have come: BREAST cancer detection education on the international stage

The development of screening mammography over 30 years has remarkedly reduced breast cancer-associated mortality by 20%-30% through detection of small cancer lesions at early stages. Yet breast screening programmes may function differently in each nation depending on the incidence rate, national legislation, local health infrastructure and training opportunities including feedback on performance. Mammography has been the frontline breast cancer screening tool for several decades; however, it is estimated that there are 15% to 35% of cancers missed on screening which are owing to perceptual and decision-making errors by radiologists and other readers. Furthermore, mammography screening is not available in all countries and the increased speed in the number of new breast cancer cases among less developed countries exceeds that of the developed world in recent decades. Studies conducted through the BreastScreen Reader Assessment Strategy (BREAST) training tools for breast screening readers have documented benchmarking and significant variation in diagnostic performances in screening mammogram test sets in different countries. The performance of the radiologists from less well-established breast screening countries such as China, Mongolia and Vietnam were significant lower in detecting early-stage cancers than radiologists from developed countries such as Australia, USA, Singapore, Italy. Differences in breast features and cancer presentations, discrepancies in the level of experiences in reading screening mammograms, the availability of high-quality national breast screening program and breast image interpretation training courses between developed and less developed countries are likely to have impact on the variation of readers' performances. Hence dedicated education training programs with the ability to tailor to different reader cohorts and different population presentations are suggested to ameliorate challenges in exposure to a range of cancer cases and improve the interpretation skills of local radiologists. Findings from this review provide a good understanding of the radiologist' performances and their improvement using the education interventions, primarily the BREAST program, which has been deployed in a large range of developing and developed countries in the last decade. Self-testing and immediate feedback loops have been shown to have important implications for benchmarking and improving the diagnostic accuracy in radiology worldwide for better breast cancer control.

Differences in lesion interpretation between radiologists in two countries: Lessons from a digital breast tomosynthesis training test set

INTRODUCTION

In many western countries, there is good evidence documenting the performance of radiologists reading digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) images. However, the diagnostic efficiency of Chinese radiologists using DBT, particularly type of errors being made and type of cancers being missed, is understudied. This study aims to investigate the pattern of diagnostic errors across different lesion types produced by Chinese radiologists diagnosing from DBT images. Australian radiologists will be used as a benchmark.

METHODS

Twelve Chinese radiologists read a DBT test set and located each perceived cancer lesion. True positives, false positives (FP), true negatives and false negatives (FN) were generated. The same test set was also read by 14 Australian radiologists. Z-scores and Pearson correlations were used to compare interpretation of lesions and identification of normal appearances between two groups of radiologists.

RESULTS

Architectural distortions (p < .001) and stellate masses (p = .02) were more difficult for Chinese radiologists to correctly diagnose compared to their Australian counterparts. Chinese readers categorised more FPs as discrete masses (p < .001) and fewer FPs as architectural distortions (p < .001) comparing with Australian radiologists. The percentages of FN for each cancer case were not correlated (r = 0.37, p = .18) but the percentages of FP for each normal case were moderately correlated (r = 0.52, p = .02) between two groups of readers.

CONCLUSIONS

Architectural distortions and stellate masses were challenging to Chinese radiologists when reading DBT. Our findings proposed the need of development of training and education programs focussing on imaging cases tailored for specific groups of readers with certain interpretation patterns.

Improving radiologist's ability in identifying particular abnormal lesions on mammograms through training test set with immediate feedback

It has been shown that there are differences in diagnostic accuracy of cancer detection on mammograms, from below 50% in developing countries to over 80% in developed world. One previous study reported that radiologists from a population in Asia displayed a low mammographic cancer detection of 48% compared with over 80% in developed countries, and more importantly, that most lesions missed by these radiologists were spiculated masses or stellate lesions. The aim of this study was to explore the performance of radiologists after undertaking a training test set which had been designed to improve the capability in detecting a specific type of cancers on mammograms. Twenty-five radiologists read two sets of 60 mammograms in a standardized mammogram reading room. The first test set focused on stellate or spiculated masses. When radiologists completed the first set, the system displayed immediate feedback to the readers comparing their performances in each case with the truth of cancer cases and cancer types so that the readers could identify individual-based errors. Later radiologists were asked to read the second set of mammograms which contained different types of cancers including stellate/spiculated masses, asymmetric density, calcification, discrete mass and architectural distortion. Case sensitivity, lesion sensitivity, specificity, receiver operating characteristics (ROC) and Jackknife alternative free-response receiver operating characteristics (JAFROC) were calculated for each participant and their diagnostic accuracy was compared between two sessions. Results showed significant improvement among radiologists in case sensitivity (+ 11.4%; P < 0.05), lesion sensitivity (+ 18.7%; P < 0.01) and JAFROC (+ 11%; P < 0.01) in the second set compared with the first set. The increase in diagnostic accuracy was also recorded in the detection of stellate/spiculated mass (+ 20.6%; P < 0.05). This indicated that the performance of radiologists in detecting malignant lesions on mammograms can be improved if an appropriate training intervention is applied after the readers' weakness and strength are identified.

Reader characteristics and mammogram features associated with breast imaging reporting scores

Objectives:

This study aims to explore the reading performances of radiologists in detecting cancers on mammograms using Tabar Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BIRADS) classification and identify factors related to breast imaging reporting scores.

Methods:

117 readings of five different mammogram test sets with each set containing 20 cancer and 40 normal cases were performed by Australian radiologists. Each radiologist evaluated the mammograms using the BIRADS lexicon with category 1 - negative, category 2 - benign findings, category 3 - equivocal findings (Recall), category 4 - suspicious findings (Recall), and category 5 - highly suggestive of malignant findings (Recall). Performance metrics (true positive, false positive, true negative, and false negative) were calculated for each radiologist and the distribution of reporting categories was analyzed in reader-based and case-based groups. The association of reader characteristics and case features among categories was examined using Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests.

Results:

38% of cancer-containing mammograms were reported with category 3 which decreased to 32.3% with category 4 and 16.2% with category 5 while 16.6 and 10.3% of cancer cases were marked with categories 1 and 2. Female readers had less false-negative rates when using categories 1 and 2 for cancer cases than male readers (p < 0.01). A similar pattern as gender category was also found in Breast Screen readers and readers completed breast reading fellowships compared with non-Breast Screen and non-fellowship readers (p < 0.05). Radiologists with low number of cases read per week were more likely to record the cancer cases with category 4 while the ones with high number of cases were with category 3 (p < 0.01). Discrete mass and asymmetric density were the two types of abnormalities reported mostly as equivocal findings with category 3 (47–50%; p = 0.005) while spiculated mass or stellate lesions were mostly selected as highly suggestive of malignancy with category 5 (26%, p = 0.001).

Conclusions:

Most radiologists used category 3 when reporting cancer mammograms. Gender, working for BreastScreen, fellowship completion, and number of cases read per week were factors associated with scoring selection. Radiologists reported higher Tabar BIRADS category for specific types of abnormalities on mammograms than others.

Advances in knowledge:

The study identified factors associated with the decision of radiologists in assigning a BIRADS Tabar score for mammograms with abnormality. These findings will be useful for individual training programs to improve the confidence of radiologists in recognizing abnormal lesions on screening mammograms.

Interpretative characteristics and case features associated with the performances of radiologists in reading mammograms: A study from a non-screening population in Asia

AIMS

To explore radiologist characteristics and case features associated with diagnostic performances in cancer detection on mammograms in a South East Asian population.

METHODS

Fifty-three radiologists reported 60 mammographic examinations which consisted of 40 normal and 20 cancer-containing cases at the BREAST workshops. Radiologists were asked to examine each mammogram using the BIRADS on diagnostic monitors. Differences in reader characteristics and case features between correct and incorrect decisions were assessed separately for cancer and normal cases. Univariate and multivariate logistic regressions were applied to generate odds ratios (OR) for significant factors related to correct decisions.

RESULTS

Radiologists who spent ≥10 hours/week reporting mammograms had a higher possibility of detecting cancer lesions (OR = 1.6; P = 0.01). A higher rate of accuracy in reporting negative cases was associated with female radiologists (OR = 1.4; P = 0.002), radiologists who read ≤20 mammograms per week (OR = 1.5; P < 0.0001), had completed training course (OR = 1.7; P < 0.0001) or wore eyeglasses (OR = 1.4; P = 0.01). Cancer cases with breast density >50% (OR = 2.1; P < 0.0001), having abnormal lesions ≥9 mm (OR = 1.8; P < 0.0001), or displaying calcifications, a discrete mass or nonspecific density (OR = 1.6; P < 0.0001) were recorded with a higher detection rate by radiologists than other cases. Lesions located on the right breasts (OR = 1.8; P < 0.0001) or found in the lower inner, upper outer or mixed locations (OR = 2.7; P < 0.0001) were also recorded with a better diagnostic possibility compared with other lesions.

CONCLUSION

This work identified key features related to diagnostic accuracy of breast cancer on mammograms in a nonscreening population, which is helpful for developing appropriate strategies to improve breast cancer detectability of radiologists.