OBJECTIVE: Qualification tasks in mammography and breast ultrasound were developed for the American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN) 6666 Investigators. We sought to assess the effects of feedback on breast ultrasound interpretive performance and agreement in BI-RADS feature analysis among a subset of these experienced observers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After a 1-hour didactic session on BI-RADS: Ultrasound, an interpretive skills quiz set of 70 orthogonal sets of breast ultrasound images including 25 (36%) malignancies was presented to 100 experienced breast imaging observers. Thirty-five observers reviewed the quiz set twice: first without and then with immediate feedback of consensus feature analysis, management recommendations, and pathologic truth. Observer performance (sensitivity, specificity, area under the curve [AUC]) was calculated without feedback and with feedback. Kappas were determined for agreement on feature analysis and assessments. RESULTS: For 35 observers without feedback, the mean sensitivity was 89% (range, 68-100%); specificity, 62% (range, 42-82%); and AUC, 82% (range, 73-89%). With feedback, the mean sensitivity was 93% (range, 80-100%; mean increase, 4%; range of increase, 0-12%; p < 0.0001), the mean specificity was 61% (range, 45-73%; mean decrease, 1%; range of change, -18% to 11%; p = 0.19), and the mean AUC was 84% (range, 78-90%; mean increase, 2%; range of change, -3% to 9%; p < 0.0001). Three breast imagers in the lowest quartile of initial performance showed the greatest improvement in sensitivity with no change or improvement in AUC. The kappa values for feature analysis did not change, but there was improved agreement about final assessments, with the kappa value increasing from 0.53 (SE, 0.02) without feedback to 0.59 (SE, 0.02) with feedback (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Most experienced breast imagers showed excellent breast ultrasound interpretive skills. Immediate feedback of consensus BI-RADS: Ultrasound features and histopathologic results improved performance in ultrasound interpretation across all experience variables.
OBJECTIVE: Qualification tasks in mammography and breast ultrasound were developed for the American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN) 6666 Investigators. We sought to assess the effects of feedback on breast ultrasound interpretive performance and agreement in BI-RADS feature analysis among a subset of these experienced observers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After a 1-hour didactic session on BI-RADS: Ultrasound, an interpretive skills quiz set of 70 orthogonal sets of breast ultrasound images including 25 (36%) malignancies was presented to 100 experienced breast imaging observers. Thirty-five observers reviewed the quiz set twice: first without and then with immediate feedback of consensus feature analysis, management recommendations, and pathologic truth. Observer performance (sensitivity, specificity, area under the curve [AUC]) was calculated without feedback and with feedback. Kappas were determined for agreement on feature analysis and assessments. RESULTS: For 35 observers without feedback, the mean sensitivity was 89% (range, 68-100%); specificity, 62% (range, 42-82%); and AUC, 82% (range, 73-89%). With feedback, the mean sensitivity was 93% (range, 80-100%; mean increase, 4%; range of increase, 0-12%; p < 0.0001), the mean specificity was 61% (range, 45-73%; mean decrease, 1%; range of change, -18% to 11%; p = 0.19), and the mean AUC was 84% (range, 78-90%; mean increase, 2%; range of change, -3% to 9%; p < 0.0001). Three breast imagers in the lowest quartile of initial performance showed the greatest improvement in sensitivity with no change or improvement in AUC. The kappa values for feature analysis did not change, but there was improved agreement about final assessments, with the kappa value increasing from 0.53 (SE, 0.02) without feedback to 0.59 (SE, 0.02) with feedback (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Most experienced breast imagers showed excellent breast ultrasound interpretive skills. Immediate feedback of consensus BI-RADS: Ultrasound features and histopathologic results improved performance in ultrasound interpretation across all experience variables.
Authors: Wendie A Berg; Zheng Zhang; Daniel Lehrer; Roberta A Jong; Etta D Pisano; Richard G Barr; Marcela Böhm-Vélez; Mary C Mahoney; W Phil Evans; Linda H Larsen; Marilyn J Morton; Ellen B Mendelson; Dione M Farria; Jean B Cormack; Helga S Marques; Amanda Adams; Nolin M Yeh; Glenna Gabrielli Journal: JAMA Date: 2012-04-04 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Wendie A Berg; Carl J D'Orsi; Valerie P Jackson; Lawrence W Bassett; Craig A Beam; Rebecca S Lewis; Philip E Crewson Journal: Radiology Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: A Thomas Stavros; Andrea G Freitas; Giselle G N deMello; Lora Barke; Dennis McDonald; Terese Kaske; Ducly Wolverton; Arnold Honick; Daniela Stanzani; Adriana H Padovan; Ana Paula C Moura; Marilia C V de Campos Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-04-10 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Jung Hyun Yoon; Hye Sun Lee; You Me Kim; Ji Hyun Youk; Sung Hun Kim; Sun Hye Jeong; Ji Young Hwang; Jin Hee Moon; Young Mi Park; Min Jung Kim Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-01-07 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Wendie A Berg; Andriy I Bandos; Ellen B Mendelson; Daniel Lehrer; Roberta A Jong; Etta D Pisano Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2015-12-28 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Hale Turnaoğlu; Kemal Murat Haberal; Serdar Arslan; Meriç Yavuz Çolak; Funda Ulu Öztürk; Nihal Uslu Journal: Turk J Med Sci Date: 2021-04-30 Impact factor: 0.973