Lyn I Jones1, Rebecca Geach1, Sam A Harding1, Christopher Foy2, Victoria Taylor1, Andrea Marshall3, Sian Taylor-Phillips3, Janet A Dunn3. 1. North Bristol NHS Trust, Southmead Hospital, Southmead Road, Westbury on Trym, Bristol BS10 5NB, UK. 2. Research Design Service South West Gloucester Office, National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Leadon House, Gloucestershire Royal Hospital, Gloucester GL1 3NN, UK. 3. Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess whether NHS breast screening programme (NHSBSP) mammogram readers could effectively interpret first post-contrast acquisition subtracted (FAST) MRI, for intended use in screening for breast cancer. METHODS: Eight NHSBSP mammogram readers from a single centre (four who also read breast MRI (Group 1) and four who do not (Group 2)) were given structured FAST MRI reader training (median 4 h: 32 min). They then prospectively interpreted 125 FAST MRIs (250 breasts: 194 normal and 56 cancer) comprising a consecutive series of screening MRIs enriched with additional cancer cases from 2015, providing 2000 interpretations. Readers were blinded to other readers' opinions and to clinical information. Categorisation followed the NHSBSP MRI reporting categorisation, with categories 4 and 5 considered indicative of cancer. Diagnostic accuracy (reference standard: histology or 2 years' follow-up) and agreement between readers were determined. RESULTS: The accuracy achieved by Group 2 (847/1000 (85%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 82-87%)) was 5% less than that of Group 1 (898/1000 (90%; 95% CI 88-92)). Good inter-reader agreement was seen between both Group 1 readers (κ = 0.66; 95% CI 0.61-0.71) and Group 2 readers (κ = 0.63; 95% CI 0.58-0.68). The median time taken to interpret each FAST MRI was Group 1: 34 s (range 3-351) and Group 2: 77 s (range 11-321). CONCLUSION: Brief structured training enabled multiprofessional mammogram readers to achieve similar accuracy at FAST MRI interpretation to consultant radiologists experienced at breast MRI interpretation. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: FAST MRI could be feasible from a training-the-workforce perspective for screening within NHSBSP.
OBJECTIVES: To assess whether NHS breast screening programme (NHSBSP) mammogram readers could effectively interpret first post-contrast acquisition subtracted (FAST) MRI, for intended use in screening for breast cancer. METHODS: Eight NHSBSP mammogram readers from a single centre (four who also read breast MRI (Group 1) and four who do not (Group 2)) were given structured FAST MRI reader training (median 4 h: 32 min). They then prospectively interpreted 125 FAST MRIs (250 breasts: 194 normal and 56 cancer) comprising a consecutive series of screening MRIs enriched with additional cancer cases from 2015, providing 2000 interpretations. Readers were blinded to other readers' opinions and to clinical information. Categorisation followed the NHSBSP MRI reporting categorisation, with categories 4 and 5 considered indicative of cancer. Diagnostic accuracy (reference standard: histology or 2 years' follow-up) and agreement between readers were determined. RESULTS: The accuracy achieved by Group 2 (847/1000 (85%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 82-87%)) was 5% less than that of Group 1 (898/1000 (90%; 95% CI 88-92)). Good inter-reader agreement was seen between both Group 1 readers (κ = 0.66; 95% CI 0.61-0.71) and Group 2 readers (κ = 0.63; 95% CI 0.58-0.68). The median time taken to interpret each FAST MRI was Group 1: 34 s (range 3-351) and Group 2: 77 s (range 11-321). CONCLUSION: Brief structured training enabled multiprofessional mammogram readers to achieve similar accuracy at FAST MRI interpretation to consultant radiologists experienced at breast MRI interpretation. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: FAST MRI could be feasible from a training-the-workforce perspective for screening within NHSBSP.
Authors: Christiane K Kuhl; Simone Schrading; Kevin Strobel; Hans H Schild; Ralf-Dieter Hilgers; Heribert B Bieling Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-06-23 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Joy Melnikow; Joshua J Fenton; Evelyn P Whitlock; Diana L Miglioretti; Meghan S Weyrich; Jamie H Thompson; Kunal Shah Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2016-01-12 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Sepideh Saadatmand; Inge-Marie Obdeijn; Emiel J Rutgers; Jan C Oosterwijk; Rob A Tollenaar; Gwendolyn H Woldringh; Elisabeth Bergers; Cornelis Verhoef; Eveline A Heijnsdijk; Maartje J Hooning; Harry J de Koning; Madeleine M Tilanus-Linthorst Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2015-04-17 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: M Boisserie-Lacroix; G Hurtevent-Labrot; S Ferron; N Lippa; H Bonnefoi; G Mac Grogan Journal: Diagn Interv Imaging Date: 2013-07-15 Impact factor: 4.026
Authors: Janice S Sung; Sarah Stamler; Jennifer Brooks; Jennifer Kaplan; Tammy Huang; D David Dershaw; Carol H Lee; Elizabeth A Morris; Christopher E Comstock Journal: Radiology Date: 2016-04-20 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: D Gareth R Evans; Louise S Donnelly; Elaine F Harkness; Susan M Astley; Paula Stavrinos; Sarah Dawe; Donna Watterson; Lynne Fox; Jamie C Sergeant; Sarah Ingham; Michelle N Harvie; Mary Wilson; Ursula Beetles; Iain Buchan; Adam R Brentnall; David P French; Jack Cuzick; Anthony Howell Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2016-03-29 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Lyn I Jones; Andrea Marshall; Premkumar Elangovan; Rebecca Geach; Sadie McKeown-Keegan; Sarah Vinnicombe; Sam A Harding; Sian Taylor-Phillips; Mark Halling-Brown; Christopher Foy; Elizabeth O'Flynn; Hesam Ghiasvand; Claire Hulme; Janet A Dunn Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2022-07-30 Impact factor: 8.408