RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The goal of mammography screening is to detect breast cancer at early stages, but because of the complexity of the breast parenchyma and the variability of signs of the disease, many cancers go unreported when initially visible on the mammogram. We compared the visual search strategy used by experienced mammographers in a case set where they examined both the mammogram in which a malignant mass was discovered at screening mammography and the most recent prior mammogram. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four experienced mammographers participated in this experiment. They read a case set of 20 two-view mammograms, of which 15 contained a malignant mass and 5 were lesion-free, in two trials. For each of the cancer cases, two versions were shown to the observers: the one in which the cancer was reported in the clinical practice, called the "current" mammograms, and the most recent prior. Each trial had a balanced mix of current and prior mammograms. In addition, the same set of lesion-free cases was shown to the observers in both trials. The eye movements of the observers were tracked, and visual search parameters such as time to hit the location of the malignant mass, dwell, and mean pupil size in the location of the cancer were collected. Statistical analyses were used to determine whether there were differences between the current and prior mammograms. RESULTS: A total of 66% of the malignant masses in the current mammograms and 57% in the priors attracted some amount of visual attention. From these, 71% yielded a report on the current mammograms, but only 40% on the priors. In the cases where the observer saw the malignant mass, they did so within 2 seconds of image display, regardless of whether the mammogram was current or prior. CONCLUSION: Most unreported malignant masses attracted some amount of visual attention, but it was in the processing of the information extracted in the location of the lesion that most errors occurred. In our experiment, approximately 70% of the total time used by the observers for visual scan of the cases was spent gathering information to corroborate the hypothesis already formed by the radiologist.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The goal of mammography screening is to detect breast cancer at early stages, but because of the complexity of the breast parenchyma and the variability of signs of the disease, many cancers go unreported when initially visible on the mammogram. We compared the visual search strategy used by experienced mammographers in a case set where they examined both the mammogram in which a malignant mass was discovered at screening mammography and the most recent prior mammogram. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four experienced mammographers participated in this experiment. They read a case set of 20 two-view mammograms, of which 15 contained a malignant mass and 5 were lesion-free, in two trials. For each of the cancer cases, two versions were shown to the observers: the one in which the cancer was reported in the clinical practice, called the "current" mammograms, and the most recent prior. Each trial had a balanced mix of current and prior mammograms. In addition, the same set of lesion-free cases was shown to the observers in both trials. The eye movements of the observers were tracked, and visual search parameters such as time to hit the location of the malignant mass, dwell, and mean pupil size in the location of the cancer were collected. Statistical analyses were used to determine whether there were differences between the current and prior mammograms. RESULTS: A total of 66% of the malignant masses in the current mammograms and 57% in the priors attracted some amount of visual attention. From these, 71% yielded a report on the current mammograms, but only 40% on the priors. In the cases where the observer saw the malignant mass, they did so within 2 seconds of image display, regardless of whether the mammogram was current or prior. CONCLUSION: Most unreported malignant masses attracted some amount of visual attention, but it was in the processing of the information extracted in the location of the lesion that most errors occurred. In our experiment, approximately 70% of the total time used by the observers for visual scan of the cases was spent gathering information to corroborate the hypothesis already formed by the radiologist.
Authors: T M Haygood; J Ryan; P C Brennan; S Li; E M Marom; M F McEntee; M Itani; M Evanoff; D Chakraborty Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2012-05-09 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Trafton Drew; Melissa Le-Hoa Vo; Alex Olwal; Francine Jacobson; Steven E Seltzer; Jeremy M Wolfe Journal: J Vis Date: 2013-08-06 Impact factor: 2.240
Authors: BaoLin Pauline Soh; Warwick Lee; Jennifer L Diffey; Mark F McEntee; Peter L Kench; Warren M Reed; Patrick C Brennan Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 4.056