PURPOSE: To compare radiologists' performance during interpretation of screening mammograms in the clinic with their performance when reading the same mammograms in a retrospective laboratory study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was conducted under an institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant protocol; the need for informed consent was waived. Nine experienced radiologists rated an enriched set of mammograms that they had personally read in the clinic (the "reader-specific" set) mixed with an enriched "common" set of mammograms that none of the participants had previously read in the clinic by using a screening Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) rating scale. The original clinical recommendations to recall the women for a diagnostic work-up, for both reader-specific and common sets, were compared with their recommendations during the retrospective experiment. The results are presented in terms of reader-specific and group-averaged sensitivity and specificity levels and the dispersion (spread) of reader-specific performance estimates. RESULTS: On average, the radiologists' performance was significantly better in the clinic than in the laboratory (P = .035). Interreader dispersion of the computed performance levels was significantly lower during the clinical interpretations (P < .01). CONCLUSION: Retrospective laboratory experiments may not represent either expected performance levels or interreader variability during clinical interpretations of the same set of mammograms in the clinical environment well. (c) RSNA, 2008.
PURPOSE: To compare radiologists' performance during interpretation of screening mammograms in the clinic with their performance when reading the same mammograms in a retrospective laboratory study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was conducted under an institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant protocol; the need for informed consent was waived. Nine experienced radiologists rated an enriched set of mammograms that they had personally read in the clinic (the "reader-specific" set) mixed with an enriched "common" set of mammograms that none of the participants had previously read in the clinic by using a screening Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) rating scale. The original clinical recommendations to recall the women for a diagnostic work-up, for both reader-specific and common sets, were compared with their recommendations during the retrospective experiment. The results are presented in terms of reader-specific and group-averaged sensitivity and specificity levels and the dispersion (spread) of reader-specific performance estimates. RESULTS: On average, the radiologists' performance was significantly better in the clinic than in the laboratory (P = .035). Interreader dispersion of the computed performance levels was significantly lower during the clinical interpretations (P < .01). CONCLUSION: Retrospective laboratory experiments may not represent either expected performance levels or interreader variability during clinical interpretations of the same set of mammograms in the clinical environment well. (c) RSNA, 2008.
Authors: Laura Esserman; Helen Cowley; Carey Eberle; Alastair Kirkpatrick; Sophia Chang; Kevin Berbaum; Alastair Gale Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2002-03-06 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: David Gur; Jules H Sumkin; Howard E Rockette; Marie Ganott; Christiane Hakim; Lara Hardesty; William R Poller; Ratan Shah; Luisa Wallace Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2004-02-04 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: David Gur; Howard E Rockette; Derek R Armfield; Arye Blachar; Jennifer K Bogan; Giuseppe Brancatelli; Cynthia A Britton; Manuel L Brown; Peter L Davis; James V Ferris; Carl R Fuhrman; Sara K Golla; Sanj Katyal; Joan M Lacomis; Barry M McCook; F Leland Thaete; Thomas E Warfel Journal: Radiology Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Nancy A Obuchowski; Sergey V Beiden; Kevin S Berbaum; Stephen L Hillis; Hemant Ishwaran; Hae Hiang Song; Robert F Wagner Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: D Gur; H E Rockette; W F Good; B S Slasky; L A Cooperstein; W H Straub; N A Obuchowski; C E Metz Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 1990-03 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Brandon D Gallas; Heang-Ping Chan; Carl J D'Orsi; Lori E Dodd; Maryellen L Giger; David Gur; Elizabeth A Krupinski; Charles E Metz; Kyle J Myers; Nancy A Obuchowski; Berkman Sahiner; Alicia Y Toledano; Margarita L Zuley Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2012-02-03 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Ernest U Ekpo; Mark F McEntee; Mary Rickard; Patrick C Brennan; Jyotsna Kunduri; Delgermaa Demchig; Claudia Mello-Thoms Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2016-02-16 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Amy Lynn Conners; Carrie B Hruska; Cindy L Tortorelli; Robert W Maxwell; Deborah J Rhodes; Judy C Boughey; Wendie A Berg Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: D P Chakraborty; T M Haygood; J Ryan; E M Marom; M Evanoff; M F McEntee; P C Brennan Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2012-05-09 Impact factor: 3.039