Literature DB >> 33778736

The Relationship between Mammography Readers' Real-Life Performance and Performance in a Test Set-based Assessment Scheme in a National Breast Screening Program.

Yan Chen1, Jonathan J James1, Eleanor J Cornford1, Jacquie Jenkins1.   

Abstract

Purpose: To compare an individual's Personal Performance in Mammographic Screening (PERFORMS) score with their Breast Screening Information System (BSIS) real-life performance data and determine which parameters in the PERFORMS scheme offer the best reflection of BSIS real-life performance metrics. Materials and
Methods: In this retrospective study, the BSIS real-life performance metrics of individual readers (n = 452) in the National Health Service Breast Screening Program (NHSBSP) in England were compared with performance in the test set-based assessment scheme over a 3-year period from 2013 to 2016. Cancer detection rate (CDR), recall rate, and positive predictive value (PPV) were calculated for each reader, for both real-life screening and the PERFORMS test. For each metric, real-life and test set versions were compared using a Pearson correlation. The real-life CDR, recall rate, and PPV of outliers were compared against other readers (nonoutliers) using analysis of variance.
Results: BSIS real-life CDRs, recall rates, and PPVs showed positive correlations with the equivalent PERFORMS measures (P < .001, P = .002, and P < .001, respectively). The mean real-life CDR of PERFORMS outliers was 7.2 per 1000 women screened and was significantly lower than other readers (nonoutliers) where the real-life CDR was 7.9 (P = .002). The mean real-life screening PPV of PERFORMS outliers was 0.14% and was significantly lower than the nonoutlier group who had a mean PPV of 0.17% (P = .006).
Conclusion: The use of test set-based assessment schemes in a breast screening program has the potential to predict and identify poor performance in real life.© RSNA, 2020Keywords: Breast, ScreeningSee also the commentary by Thigpen and Rapelyea in this issue. 2020 by the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

Entities:  

Year:  2020        PMID: 33778736      PMCID: PMC7983651          DOI: 10.1148/rycan.2020200016

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiol Imaging Cancer        ISSN: 2638-616X


  9 in total

1.  Assessing mammographers' accuracy. A comparison of clinical and test performance.

Authors:  C M Rutter; S Taplin
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 6.437

Review 2.  Assessing reader performance in radiology, an imperfect science: lessons from breast screening.

Authors:  B P Soh; W Lee; P L Kench; W M Reed; M F McEntee; A Poulos; P C Brennan
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  2012-04-07       Impact factor: 2.350

3.  Should a standard be defined for the Positive Predictive Value (PPV) of recall in the UK NHS Breast Screening Programme?

Authors:  R L Bennett; R G Blanks
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2006-08-14       Impact factor: 4.380

4.  Context bias. A problem in diagnostic radiology.

Authors:  T K Egglin; A R Feinstein
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1996-12-04       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  Screening mammography: test set data can reasonably describe actual clinical reporting.

Authors:  BaoLin P Soh; Warwick Lee; Mark F McEntee; Peter L Kench; Warren M Reed; Rob Heard; Dev P Chakraborty; Patrick C Brennan
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2013-03-12       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Does individual programme size affect screening performance? Results from the United Kingdom NHS breast screening programme.

Authors:  R G Blanks; R L Bennett; M G Wallis; S M Moss
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 2.136

Review 7.  Role of performance metrics in breast screening imaging - where are we and where should we be?

Authors:  S L Cohen; R G Blanks; J Jenkins; O Kearins
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  2018-02-01       Impact factor: 2.350

8.  The "laboratory" effect: comparing radiologists' performance and variability during prospective clinical and laboratory mammography interpretations.

Authors:  David Gur; Andriy I Bandos; Cathy S Cohen; Christiane M Hakim; Lara A Hardesty; Marie A Ganott; Ronald L Perrin; William R Poller; Ratan Shah; Jules H Sumkin; Luisa P Wallace; Howard E Rockette
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2008-08-05       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 9.  Healthcare Staff Wellbeing, Burnout, and Patient Safety: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Louise H Hall; Judith Johnson; Ian Watt; Anastasia Tsipa; Daryl B O'Connor
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-07-08       Impact factor: 3.240

  9 in total
  1 in total

1.  Evaluating the effectiveness of abbreviated breast MRI (abMRI) interpretation training for mammogram readers: a multi-centre study assessing diagnostic performance, using an enriched dataset.

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

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.