Beniamino Brancato1, Francesca Peruzzi2, Calogero Saieva3, Simone Schiaffino4, Sandra Catarzi5, Gabriella Gemma Risso5, Andrea Cozzi6, Serena Carriero7, Massimo Calabrese8, Stefania Montemezzi9, Chiara Zuiani10, Francesco Sardanelli4,6. 1. Unit of Breast Imaging, Istituto per lo Studio, la Prevenzione e la Rete Oncologica - ISPRO, Via Cosimo il Vecchio 2, 50139, Firenze, Italy. b.brancato@ispro.toscana.it. 2. Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Pisana, Via Paradisa 2, 56124, Pisa, Italy. 3. Cancer Risk Factors and Lifestyle Epidemiology Unit, Molecular and Lifestyle Epidemiology Branch, Istituto per lo Studio, la Prevenzione e la Rete Oncologica - ISPRO, Via Cosimo il Vecchio 2, 50139, Firenze, Italy. 4. Unit of Radiology, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, Via Rodolfo Morandi 30, 20097, San Donato Milanese, Italy. 5. Unit of Breast Imaging, Istituto per lo Studio, la Prevenzione e la Rete Oncologica - ISPRO, Via Cosimo il Vecchio 2, 50139, Firenze, Italy. 6. Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Luigi Mangiagalli 31, 20133, Milano, Italy. 7. Postgraduate School in Radiodiagnostics, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Festa del Perdono 7, 20122, Milano, Italy. 8. Unit of Breast Imaging, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Largo Rosanna Benzi 10, 16132, Genova, Italy. 9. Radiology Unit - Department of Pathology and Diagnostics, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata Verona, Piazzale Aristide Stefani 1, 37126, Verona, Italy. 10. Department of Medical Area - Institute of Radiology, Università degli Studi di Udine, Piazzale Santa Maria della Misericordia 15, 33100, Udine, Italy.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To report and analyse the characteristics and performance of the first cohort of Italian radiologists completing the national mammography self-evaluation online test established by the Italian Society of Medical Radiology (SIRM). METHODS: A specifically-built dataset of 132 mammograms (24 with screen-detected cancers and 108 negative cases) was preliminarily tested on 48 radiologists to define pass thresholds (62% sensitivity and 86% specificity) and subsequently made available online to SIRM members during a 13-month timeframe between 2018 and 2019. Associations between participants' characteristics, pass rates, and diagnostic accuracy were then investigated with descriptive statistics and univariate and multivariable regression analyses. RESULTS: A total of 342 radiologists completed the test, 151/342 (44.2%) with success. All individual variables, except gender, showed a significant correlation with pass rates and diagnostic sensitivity, confirmed by univariate logistic regression, while only involvement in organised screening programs and number of mammograms read per year showed a positive association with specificity at univariate logistic regression. In the multivariable regression analysis, fewer variables remained significant: > 3000 mammograms read per year for success rate; female gender, public practice setting, and higher experience self-judgement for sensitivity; no variables were significantly associated with specificity. CONCLUSIONS: This national self-evaluation test effectively differentiated multiple aspects of mammographic reading experience, but specific breast imaging experience was shown not to strictly guarantee good diagnostic accuracy. Due to its easy use and the validity of obtained results, this test could be extended to all Italian breast radiologists, regardless of their experience, also as a Breast Unit accreditation criterion. KEY POINTS: • This self-evaluation test was found to be able to differentiate various degrees of mammographic interpretation experience. • Breast cancer screening readers should undergo a self-assessment test, since experience parameters alone do not guarantee diagnostic ability.
OBJECTIVES: To report and analyse the characteristics and performance of the first cohort of Italian radiologists completing the national mammography self-evaluation online test established by the Italian Society of Medical Radiology (SIRM). METHODS: A specifically-built dataset of 132 mammograms (24 with screen-detected cancers and 108 negative cases) was preliminarily tested on 48 radiologists to define pass thresholds (62% sensitivity and 86% specificity) and subsequently made available online to SIRM members during a 13-month timeframe between 2018 and 2019. Associations between participants' characteristics, pass rates, and diagnostic accuracy were then investigated with descriptive statistics and univariate and multivariable regression analyses. RESULTS: A total of 342 radiologists completed the test, 151/342 (44.2%) with success. All individual variables, except gender, showed a significant correlation with pass rates and diagnostic sensitivity, confirmed by univariate logistic regression, while only involvement in organised screening programs and number of mammograms read per year showed a positive association with specificity at univariate logistic regression. In the multivariable regression analysis, fewer variables remained significant: > 3000 mammograms read per year for success rate; female gender, public practice setting, and higher experience self-judgement for sensitivity; no variables were significantly associated with specificity. CONCLUSIONS: This national self-evaluation test effectively differentiated multiple aspects of mammographic reading experience, but specific breast imaging experience was shown not to strictly guarantee good diagnostic accuracy. Due to its easy use and the validity of obtained results, this test could be extended to all Italian breast radiologists, regardless of their experience, also as a Breast Unit accreditation criterion. KEY POINTS: • This self-evaluation test was found to be able to differentiate various degrees of mammographic interpretation experience. • Breast cancer screening readers should undergo a self-assessment test, since experience parameters alone do not guarantee diagnostic ability.
Authors: Béatrice Lauby-Secretan; Chiara Scoccianti; Dana Loomis; Lamia Benbrahim-Tallaa; Véronique Bouvard; Franca Bianchini; Kurt Straif Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-06-03 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Lindsey A Torre; Farhad Islami; Rebecca L Siegel; Elizabeth M Ward; Ahmedin Jemal Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2017-02-21 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: A R M Wilson; L Marotti; S Bianchi; L Biganzoli; S Claassen; T Decker; A Frigerio; A Goldhirsch; E G Gustafsson; R E Mansel; R Orecchia; A Ponti; P Poortmans; P Regitnig; M Rosselli Del Turco; E J Th Rutgers; C van Asperen; C A Wells; Y Wengström; L Cataliotti Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2013-08-19 Impact factor: 9.162