RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVE: To evaluate breast radiologists' recognition of mammograms showing cancers that they correctly detected or "missed" during clinical interpretations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two similar experiments were conducted. In the first, 33 bilateral screening mammograms were reviewed by four breast imagers. These included five cancers that each radiologist had detected, two cancers that each radiologist had "missed," and five mammograms recalled by other radiologists that were not cancer. Radiologists were asked if they had interpreted the mammogram in clinic and if the mammogram was suspicious for cancer. In the second experiment, four different breast imagers reviewed 48 mammograms that included five cancers that each radiologist had detected, two cancers that each radiologist had "missed," and five mammograms that were recalled by each radiologist but were not cancer. Using chi-square analysis, the performance of the radiologists on screening mammograms they had read in clinic was compared with their performance on mammograms read in clinic by other radiologists. RESULTS: Seven of eight radiologists did not remember interpreting any of the mammograms in clinic. One radiologist correctly remembered interpreting one mammogram in clinic, but interpreted it incorrectly. Average performance showed no significant difference (P = .60) between mammograms they had interpreted in clinic and those interpreted by others. CONCLUSION: Radiologists do not remember most mammograms showing cancer that they have interpreted, either correctly or incorrectly, after they are mixed with mammograms showing cancer that were interpreted by other radiologists. Screening mammograms can be used in observer performance studies in which the interpreting radiologist participates as an observer.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVE: To evaluate breast radiologists' recognition of mammograms showing cancers that they correctly detected or "missed" during clinical interpretations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two similar experiments were conducted. In the first, 33 bilateral screening mammograms were reviewed by four breast imagers. These included five cancers that each radiologist had detected, two cancers that each radiologist had "missed," and five mammograms recalled by other radiologists that were not cancer. Radiologists were asked if they had interpreted the mammogram in clinic and if the mammogram was suspicious for cancer. In the second experiment, four different breast imagers reviewed 48 mammograms that included five cancers that each radiologist had detected, two cancers that each radiologist had "missed," and five mammograms that were recalled by each radiologist but were not cancer. Using chi-square analysis, the performance of the radiologists on screening mammograms they had read in clinic was compared with their performance on mammograms read in clinic by other radiologists. RESULTS: Seven of eight radiologists did not remember interpreting any of the mammograms in clinic. One radiologist correctly remembered interpreting one mammogram in clinic, but interpreted it incorrectly. Average performance showed no significant difference (P = .60) between mammograms they had interpreted in clinic and those interpreted by others. CONCLUSION: Radiologists do not remember most mammograms showing cancer that they have interpreted, either correctly or incorrectly, after they are mixed with mammograms showing cancer that were interpreted by other radiologists. Screening mammograms can be used in observer performance studies in which the interpreting radiologist participates as an observer.
Authors: Karla K Evans; Edith M Marom; Myrna C B Godoy; Diana Palacio; Tara Sagebiel; Sonia Betancourt Cuellar; Mark McEntee; Charles Tian; Patrick C Brennan; Tamara Miner Haygood Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2015-11-03
Authors: T M Haygood; M A Q Liu; E Galvan; R Bassett; W A Murphy; C S Ng; A Matamoros; E M Marom Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2014-04-03 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: David L Raunig; Annette M Schmid; Colin G Miller; Richard C Walovitch; Michael O'Connor; Klaus Noever; Ivalina Hristova; Michael O'Neal; Guenther Brueggenwerth; Robert R Ford Journal: Ther Innov Regul Sci Date: 2021-07-09 Impact factor: 1.778
Authors: Karla K Evans; Michael A Cohen; Rosemary Tambouret; Todd Horowitz; Erica Kreindel; Jeremy M Wolfe Journal: Atten Percept Psychophys Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: David Gur; Andriy I Bandos; Cathy S Cohen; Christiane M Hakim; Lara A Hardesty; Marie A Ganott; Ronald L Perrin; William R Poller; Ratan Shah; Jules H Sumkin; Luisa P Wallace; Howard E Rockette Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-08-05 Impact factor: 11.105