Literature DB >> 26158030

Number of mammography cases read per year is a strong predictor of sensitivity.

Wasfi I Suleiman1, Sarah J Lewis1, Dianne Georgian-Smith2, Michael G Evanoff3, Mark F McEntee1.   

Abstract

Early detection of breast cancers affects the 5-year recurrence rates and treatment options for diagnosed patients, and consequently, many countries have instituted nationwide screening programs. This study compared the performance of expert radiologists from Australia and the United States in detection of breast cancer. Forty-one radiologists, 21 from Australia and 20 from the United States, reviewed 30 mammographic cases containing two-view mammograms. Twenty cases had abnormal findings and 10 cases had normal findings. Radiologists were asked to locate malignancies and assign a level of confidence. A jackknife free-response receiver operating characteristic, figure of merit (JAFROC, FOM), inferred receiver operating characteristic, area under curve (ROC, AUC), specificity, sensitivity, and location sensitivity were calculated using Ziltron software and JAFROC v4.1. A Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the performance of Australian and U.S. radiologists. The results showed that when experience and the number of mammograms read per year were taken into account, the Australian radiologists sampled showed significantly higher sensitivity and location sensitivity ([Formula: see text]). JAFROC (FOM) and inferred ROC (AUC) analysis showed no difference between the overall performance of the two countries. ROC (AUC) and location sensitivity were higher for the Australian radiologists who read the most cases per year.

Entities:  

Keywords:  breast cancer; experience; mammography; radiologists performance; sensitivity

Year:  2014        PMID: 26158030      PMCID: PMC4478883          DOI: 10.1117/1.JMI.1.1.015503

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)        ISSN: 2329-4302


  21 in total

1.  Standardized abnormal interpretation and cancer detection ratios to assess reading volume and reader performance in a breast screening program.

Authors:  L Kan; I A Olivotto; L J Warren Burhenne; E A Sickles; A J Coldman
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  The Swedish Two-County Trial twenty years later. Updated mortality results and new insights from long-term follow-up.

Authors:  L Tabár; B Vitak; H H Chen; S W Duffy; M F Yen; C F Chiang; U B Krusemo; T Tot; R A Smith
Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 2.303

3.  The Mammography Quality Standards Act. An overview of the regulations and guidance.

Authors:  B S Monsees
Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 2.303

4.  On the choice of acceptance radius in free-response observer performance studies.

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

5.  Markers of good performance in mammography depend on number of annual readings.

Authors:  Mohammad A Rawashdeh; Warwick B Lee; Roger M Bourne; Elaine A Ryan; Mariusz W Pietrzyk; Warren M Reed; Robert C Heard; Deborah A Black; Patrick C Brennan
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2013-06-04       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Comparing the performance of mammography screening in the USA and the UK.

Authors:  Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Diana L Miglioretti; Julietta Patnick; Karla Kerlikowske
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 2.136

7.  Efficacy of screening mammography among women aged 40 to 49 years and 50 to 69 years: comparison of relative and absolute benefit.

Authors:  K Kerlikowske
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  1997

8.  Variability in the interpretation of screening mammograms by US radiologists. Findings from a national sample.

Authors:  C A Beam; P M Layde; D C Sullivan
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  1996-01-22

9.  Comparison of screening mammography in the United States and the United kingdom.

Authors:  Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Philip W Chu; Diana L Miglioretti; Edward A Sickles; Roger Blanks; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Janet K Bobo; Nancy C Lee; Matthew G Wallis; Julietta Patnick; Karla Kerlikowske
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2003-10-22       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  Screening interval breast cancers: mammographic features and prognosis factors.

Authors:  H C Burrell; D M Sibbering; A R Wilson; S E Pinder; A J Evans; L J Yeoman; C W Elston; I O Ellis; R W Blamey; J F Robertson
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1996-06       Impact factor: 11.105

View more
  6 in total

1.  A machine learning model based on readers' characteristics to predict their performances in reading screening mammograms.

Authors:  Ziba Gandomkar; Sarah J Lewis; Tong Li; Ernest U Ekpo; Patrick C Brennan
Journal:  Breast Cancer       Date:  2022-02-05       Impact factor: 3.307

2.  Personal and Network Dynamics in Performance of Knowledge Workers: A Study of Australian Breast Radiologists.

Authors:  Seyedamir Tavakoli Taba; Liaquat Hossain; Robert Heard; Patrick Brennan; Warwick Lee; Sarah Lewis
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-02-26       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Breast Cancer Diagnostic Efficacy in a Developing South-East Asian Country

Authors:  Rhianna L Jackson; Callan R Double; Hayden J Munro; Jessica Lynch; Kriscia A Tapia; Phuong Dung Trieu; Maram Alakhras; Aarthi Ganesan; Thuan Doan Do; Baolin Pauline Soh; Patrick C Brennan; Puslednik Puslednik
Journal:  Asian Pac J Cancer Prev       Date:  2019-03-26

4.  Reader characteristics and mammogram features associated with breast imaging reporting scores.

Authors:  Phuong Dung Yun Trieu; Sarah J Lewis; Tong Li; Karen Ho; Kriscia A Tapia; Patrick C Brennan
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2020-08-05       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 5.  Errors in Mammography Cannot be Solved Through Technology Alone

Authors:  Ernest Usang Ekpo; Maram Alakhras; Patrick Brennan
Journal:  Asian Pac J Cancer Prev       Date:  2018-02-26

6.  Breast cancer detection across dense and non-dense breasts: Markers of diagnostic confidence and efficacy.

Authors:  Ibrahim Hadadi; William Rae; Jillian Clarke; Mark McEntee; Ernest Ekpo
Journal:  Acta Radiol Open       Date:  2022-01-29
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.