Literature DB >> 32986361

Reading High Breast Density Mammograms: Differences in Diagnostic Performance between Radiologists from Hong Kong SAR/Guangdong Province in China and Australia.

Tong Li1, Seyedamir Tavakoli Taba2, Pek-Lan Khong3, Tom X-L Tan4, Phuong Dung Yun Trieu1, Edward Chan4, Moayyad E Suleiman2, Ying Li4, Patrick Brennan2, Sarah Lewis2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Variations in the performance of radiologists reading mammographic images are well reported, but key parameters explaining such variations in different countries are not fully explored. The main aim of this study is to investigate performances of Chinese (Hong Kong SAR and Guangdong Province) and Australian radiologists in interpreting dense breast mammographic images.
METHODS: A test set, contained 60 mammographic examinations with high breast density, was used to assess radiologists' performance. Twelve Chinese and thirteen Australian radiologists read all the cases independently and were asked to identify all lesions and provide a grade from 1 to 5 to each lesion. Case sensitivity, specificity, lesion sensitivity, AUC and JAFROC were used to assess radiologists' performances. Demographic information and reading experience were also collected from the readers. Performance scores were compared between the two populations and the relationships between performance scores and their reading experience were discovered.
RESULTS: For radiologists who were less than 40-year-old, lesion sensitivity, AUC and JAFROC were significantly lower in Chinese radiologists than those in Australian (52.10% vs 71.45%, p=0.043; 0.76 vs 0.84, p=0.031; 0.59 vs 0.72, p=0.045; respectively). Australian radiologists with less than 10 years of reading experience had higher AUC and JAFROC scores compared with their Chinese counterparts (0.83 vs 0.76, p=0.039; 0.70 vs 0.56, p=0.020, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: We found that younger Australian radiologists performed better at reading dense breast cases which is likely to be linked to intensive fellowship training, immersion in a screening program and exposure to the benefits of a performance-measuring education tool.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Breast Cancer Screening; Sensitivity; Specificity; breast image reading; mammography

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32986361      PMCID: PMC7779441          DOI: 10.31557/APJCP.2020.21.9.2623

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Asian Pac J Cancer Prev        ISSN: 1513-7368


  18 in total

1.  Malignancy detection in digital mammograms: important reader characteristics and required case numbers.

Authors:  Warren M Reed; Warwick B Lee; Jennifer N Cawson; Patrick C Brennan
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2010-08-17       Impact factor: 3.173

2.  Recent advances in observer performance methodology: jackknife free-response ROC (JAFROC).

Authors:  Dev P Chakraborty
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 0.972

3.  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

4.  Impact of Breast Reader Assessment Strategy on mammographic radiologists' test reading performance.

Authors:  Wasfi I Suleiman; Mohammad A Rawashdeh; Sarah J Lewis; Mark F McEntee; Warwick Lee; Kriscia Tapia; Patrick C Brennan
Journal:  J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol       Date:  2016-04-06       Impact factor: 1.735

5.  Using Volumetric Breast Density to Quantify the Potential Masking Risk of Mammographic Density.

Authors:  Stamatia Destounis; Lisa Johnston; Ralph Highnam; Andrea Arieno; Renee Morgan; Ariane Chan
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2016-11-08       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 6.  Descriptive epidemiology of breast cancer in China: incidence, mortality, survival and prevalence.

Authors:  Tong Li; Claudia Mello-Thoms; Patrick C Brennan
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2016-08-25       Impact factor: 4.872

7.  Radiologist characteristics associated with interpretive performance of diagnostic mammography.

Authors:  Diana L Miglioretti; Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Linn Abraham; R James Brenner; Patricia A Carney; Erin J Aiello Bowles; Diana S M Buist; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2007-12-11       Impact factor: 13.506

8.  A nation-wide multicenter 10-year (1999-2008) retrospective clinical epidemiological study of female breast cancer in China.

Authors:  Jing Li; Bao-Ning Zhang; Jin-Hu Fan; Yi Pang; Pin Zhang; Shu-Lian Wang; Shan Zheng; Bin Zhang; Hong-Jian Yang; Xiao-Ming Xie; Zhong-Hua Tang; Hui Li; Jia-Yuan Li; Jian-Jun He; You-Lin Qiao
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2011-08-22       Impact factor: 4.430

Review 9.  Current status of breast cancer prevention in China.

Authors:  Fei Wang; Zhi-Gang Yu
Journal:  Chronic Dis Transl Med       Date:  2015-03-20

10.  Social networks and expertise development for Australian breast radiologists.

Authors:  Seyedamir Tavakoli Taba; Liaquat Hossain; Karen Willis; Sarah Lewis
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2017-02-11       Impact factor: 2.655

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.