OBJECTIVE: The combination of mammography and/or ultrasound remains the mainstay in current breast cancer diagnosis. The aims of this study were to evaluate the reliability of standard breast imaging and individual radiologist performance and to explore ways that this can be improved. METHODS: A total of 16,603 separate assessment episodes were undertaken on 13,958 patients referred to a specialist symptomatic breast clinic over a 6 year period. Each mammogram and ultrasound was reported prospectively using a five-point reporting scale and compared with final outcome. RESULTS: Mammographic sensitivity, specificity and receiver operating curve (ROC) area were 66.6%, 99.7% and 0.83, respectively. The sensitivity of mammography improved dramatically from 47.6 to 86.7% with increasing age. Overall ultrasound sensitivity, specificity and ROC area was 82.0%, 99.3% and 0.91, respectively. The sensitivity of ultrasound also improved dramatically with increasing age from 66.7 to 97.1%. Breast density also had a profound effect on imaging performance, with mammographic sensitivity falling from 90.1 to 45.9% and ultrasound sensitivity reducing from 95.2 to 72.0% with increasing breast density. CONCLUSION: The sensitivity ranges widely between radiologists (53.1-74.1% for mammography and 67.1-87.0% for ultrasound). Reporting sensitivity was strongly correlated with radiologist experience. Those radiologists with less experience (and lower sensitivity) were relatively more likely to report a cancer as indeterminate/uncertain. To improve radiology reporting performance, the sensitivity of cancer reporting should be closely monitored; there should be regular feedback from needle biopsy results and discussion of reporting classification with colleagues.
OBJECTIVE: The combination of mammography and/or ultrasound remains the mainstay in current breast cancer diagnosis. The aims of this study were to evaluate the reliability of standard breast imaging and individual radiologist performance and to explore ways that this can be improved. METHODS: A total of 16,603 separate assessment episodes were undertaken on 13,958 patients referred to a specialist symptomatic breast clinic over a 6 year period. Each mammogram and ultrasound was reported prospectively using a five-point reporting scale and compared with final outcome. RESULTS: Mammographic sensitivity, specificity and receiver operating curve (ROC) area were 66.6%, 99.7% and 0.83, respectively. The sensitivity of mammography improved dramatically from 47.6 to 86.7% with increasing age. Overall ultrasound sensitivity, specificity and ROC area was 82.0%, 99.3% and 0.91, respectively. The sensitivity of ultrasound also improved dramatically with increasing age from 66.7 to 97.1%. Breast density also had a profound effect on imaging performance, with mammographic sensitivity falling from 90.1 to 45.9% and ultrasound sensitivity reducing from 95.2 to 72.0% with increasing breast density. CONCLUSION: The sensitivity ranges widely between radiologists (53.1-74.1% for mammography and 67.1-87.0% for ultrasound). Reporting sensitivity was strongly correlated with radiologist experience. Those radiologists with less experience (and lower sensitivity) were relatively more likely to report a cancer as indeterminate/uncertain. To improve radiology reporting performance, the sensitivity of cancer reporting should be closely monitored; there should be regular feedback from needle biopsy results and discussion of reporting classification with colleagues.
Authors: K Flobbe; P J Nelemans; A G H Kessels; G L Beets; M F von Meyenfeldt; J M A van Engelshoven Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: William E Barlow; Chen Chi; Patricia A Carney; Stephen H Taplin; Carl D'Orsi; Gary Cutter; R Edward Hendrick; Joann G Elmore Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2004-12-15 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: P Britton; S W Duffy; R Sinnatamby; M G Wallis; S Barter; M Gaskarth; A O'Neill; C Caldas; J D Brenton; P Forouhi; G C Wishart Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2009-05-19 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Alberto Izzotti; Stefano Carozzo; Alessandra Pulliero; Dinara Zhabayeva; Jean Louis Ravetti; Rakhmet Bersimbaev Journal: Am J Cancer Res Date: 2016-07-01 Impact factor: 6.166
Authors: Lyn I Jones; Rebecca Geach; Sam A Harding; Christopher Foy; Victoria Taylor; Andrea Marshall; Sian Taylor-Phillips; Janet A Dunn Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2019-10-03 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Michael G Schrauder; Reiner Strick; Rüdiger Schulz-Wendtland; Pamela L Strissel; Laura Kahmann; Christian R Loehberg; Michael P Lux; Sebastian M Jud; Arndt Hartmann; Alexander Hein; Christian M Bayer; Mayada R Bani; Swetlana Richter; Boris R Adamietz; Evelyn Wenkel; Claudia Rauh; Matthias W Beckmann; Peter A Fasching Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-01-05 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Andrew Evans; Rubina M Trimboli; Alexandra Athanasiou; Corinne Balleyguier; Pascal A Baltzer; Ulrich Bick; Julia Camps Herrero; Paola Clauser; Catherine Colin; Eleanor Cornford; Eva M Fallenberg; Michael H Fuchsjaeger; Fiona J Gilbert; Thomas H Helbich; Karen Kinkel; Sylvia H Heywang-Köbrunner; Christiane K Kuhl; Ritse M Mann; Laura Martincich; Pietro Panizza; Federica Pediconi; Ruud M Pijnappel; Katja Pinker; Sophia Zackrisson; Gabor Forrai; Francesco Sardanelli Journal: Insights Imaging Date: 2018-08-09