Jung Hyun Yoon1, Hye Sun Lee2, You Me Kim3, Ji Hyun Youk4, Sung Hun Kim5, Sun Hye Jeong6, Ji Young Hwang7, Jin Hee Moon7, Young Mi Park8, Min Jung Kim9. 1. Department of Radiology, Research Institute of Radiological Science, Yonsei University, College of Medicine, 50 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, 03722, South Korea. 2. Biostatistics Collaboration Unit, Medical Research Center, Yonsei University, College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea. 3. Department of Radiology, Dankook University Hospital, Dankook University, College of Medicine, Cheonan, South Korea. 4. Department of Radiology, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University, College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea. 5. Department of Radiology, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, Seoul, South Korea. 6. Department of Radiology, Soonchunhyang University, Bucheon Hospital, Bucheon, South Korea. 7. Department of Radiology, Kangnam Sacred Hospital, Hallym University, College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea. 8. Department of Radiology, Inje University Busan Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine, Gimhae, South Korea. 9. Department of Radiology, Research Institute of Radiological Science, Yonsei University, College of Medicine, 50 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, 03722, South Korea. mines@yuhs.ac.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of training radiology residents on breast ultrasonography (US) according to the Breast Imaging Reporting And Data System (BI-RADS) and the factors that influence the training effect. METHODS: This multicenter, prospective study was approved by eight institutional review boards. From September 2013 to July 2014, 248 breast masses in 227 women were included for US image acquisition. Representative B-mode and video images of the breast masses were recorded, among which 54 cases were included in the education set and 66 in the test set. Sixty-one radiology residents scheduled for breast imaging training individually reviewed the test set, immediately before, 1 month after, and 6 months after training. Diagnostic performances and US descriptors of the residents were evaluated and compared against those of expert radiologists. RESULTS: Agreements between residents and experienced radiologists showed improvement after training, while agreements between post-training and post-6-month training descriptors did not show significant differences (all p > 0.05, respectively). Sensitivity, negative predictive value (NPV), and AUC were significantly improved for residents post-training and post-6-month training (all p < 0.05), while approximating the performances of expert radiologists except for AUC (0.836, 0.840, and 0.908, respectively, p < 0.05). Low levels of pre-training AUC, total number of breast US examinations, and the number of sessions per week that residents were involved in were factors influencing the improvement of AUC. CONCLUSION: Training using education material dedicated for breast US imaging effectively improved the diagnostic performances of radiology residents and agreements with experienced radiologists on US BI-RADS features. KEY POINTS: • Agreements on lesion descriptors between residents and experienced radiologists showed improvement after training, regardless of test point. • Sensitivity, NPV, and AUC were significantly improved for residents in post-training and post-6-month training (all p < 0.05). • Low levels of pre-training AUC, total number of breast US examinations, and the number of sessions per week that residents were involved in were factors influencing the improvement of AUC.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of training radiology residents on breast ultrasonography (US) according to the Breast Imaging Reporting And Data System (BI-RADS) and the factors that influence the training effect. METHODS: This multicenter, prospective study was approved by eight institutional review boards. From September 2013 to July 2014, 248 breast masses in 227 women were included for US image acquisition. Representative B-mode and video images of the breast masses were recorded, among which 54 cases were included in the education set and 66 in the test set. Sixty-one radiology residents scheduled for breast imaging training individually reviewed the test set, immediately before, 1 month after, and 6 months after training. Diagnostic performances and US descriptors of the residents were evaluated and compared against those of expert radiologists. RESULTS: Agreements between residents and experienced radiologists showed improvement after training, while agreements between post-training and post-6-month training descriptors did not show significant differences (all p > 0.05, respectively). Sensitivity, negative predictive value (NPV), and AUC were significantly improved for residents post-training and post-6-month training (all p < 0.05), while approximating the performances of expert radiologists except for AUC (0.836, 0.840, and 0.908, respectively, p < 0.05). Low levels of pre-training AUC, total number of breast US examinations, and the number of sessions per week that residents were involved in were factors influencing the improvement of AUC. CONCLUSION: Training using education material dedicated for breast US imaging effectively improved the diagnostic performances of radiology residents and agreements with experienced radiologists on US BI-RADS features. KEY POINTS: • Agreements on lesion descriptors between residents and experienced radiologists showed improvement after training, regardless of test point. • Sensitivity, NPV, and AUC were significantly improved for residents in post-training and post-6-month training (all p < 0.05). • Low levels of pre-training AUC, total number of breast US examinations, and the number of sessions per week that residents were involved in were factors influencing the improvement of AUC.
Authors: Regina J Hooley; Kathryn L Greenberg; Rebecca M Stackhouse; Jaime L Geisel; Reni S Butler; Liane E Philpotts Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-06-21 Impact factor: 11.105
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: Wendie A Berg; Jeffrey D Blume; Jean B Cormack; Ellen B Mendelson; Daniel Lehrer; Marcela Böhm-Vélez; Etta D Pisano; Roberta A Jong; W Phil Evans; Marilyn J Morton; Mary C Mahoney; Linda Hovanessian Larsen; Richard G Barr; Dione M Farria; Helga S Marques; Karan Boparai Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-05-14 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Tommaso Vincenzo Bartolotta; Alessia Angela Maria Orlando; Maria Laura Di Vittorio; Francesco Amato; Mariangela Dimarco; Domenica Matranga; Raffaele Ienzi Journal: J Ultrasound Date: 2020-05-23