» Articles » PMID: 22733916

Training the ACRIN 6666 Investigators and Effects of Feedback on Breast Ultrasound Interpretive Performance and Agreement in BI-RADS Ultrasound Feature Analysis

Overview
Specialties Oncology
Radiology
Date 2012 Jun 27
PMID 22733916
Citations 27
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: Qualification tasks in mammography and breast ultrasound were developed for the American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN) 6666 Investigators. We sought to assess the effects of feedback on breast ultrasound interpretive performance and agreement in BI-RADS feature analysis among a subset of these experienced observers.

Materials And Methods: After a 1-hour didactic session on BI-RADS: Ultrasound, an interpretive skills quiz set of 70 orthogonal sets of breast ultrasound images including 25 (36%) malignancies was presented to 100 experienced breast imaging observers. Thirty-five observers reviewed the quiz set twice: first without and then with immediate feedback of consensus feature analysis, management recommendations, and pathologic truth. Observer performance (sensitivity, specificity, area under the curve [AUC]) was calculated without feedback and with feedback. Kappas were determined for agreement on feature analysis and assessments.

Results: For 35 observers without feedback, the mean sensitivity was 89% (range, 68-100%); specificity, 62% (range, 42-82%); and AUC, 82% (range, 73-89%). With feedback, the mean sensitivity was 93% (range, 80-100%; mean increase, 4%; range of increase, 0-12%; p < 0.0001), the mean specificity was 61% (range, 45-73%; mean decrease, 1%; range of change, -18% to 11%; p = 0.19), and the mean AUC was 84% (range, 78-90%; mean increase, 2%; range of change, -3% to 9%; p < 0.0001). Three breast imagers in the lowest quartile of initial performance showed the greatest improvement in sensitivity with no change or improvement in AUC. The kappa values for feature analysis did not change, but there was improved agreement about final assessments, with the kappa value increasing from 0.53 (SE, 0.02) without feedback to 0.59 (SE, 0.02) with feedback (p < 0.0001).

Conclusion: Most experienced breast imagers showed excellent breast ultrasound interpretive skills. Immediate feedback of consensus BI-RADS: Ultrasound features and histopathologic results improved performance in ultrasound interpretation across all experience variables.

Citing Articles

Updates in Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis.

Spear G, Lee K, DePersia A, Lienhoop T, Saha P Curr Treat Options Oncol. 2024; 25(11):1451-1460.

PMID: 39466539 DOI: 10.1007/s11864-024-01271-8.


Training on contrast-enhanced ultrasound LI-RADS classification for resident radiologists: a retrospective comparison of performance after training.

Dai T, Zhu H, Qiao M, Song Y, Sun Y, Meng X Insights Imaging. 2024; 15(1):205.

PMID: 39143424 PMC: 11324635. DOI: 10.1186/s13244-024-01786-6.


Artificial intelligence in breast ultrasound: application in clinical practice.

Fruchtman Brot H, Mango V Ultrasonography. 2023; 43(1):3-14.

PMID: 38109894 PMC: 10766882. DOI: 10.14366/usg.23116.


Validating racial and ethnic non-bias of artificial intelligence decision support for diagnostic breast ultrasound evaluation.

Koo C, Yang A, Welch C, Jadav V, Posch L, Thoreson N J Med Imaging (Bellingham). 2023; 10(6):061108.

PMID: 38106815 PMC: 10721939. DOI: 10.1117/1.JMI.10.6.061108.


Bridging Communication Gaps Between Radiologists, Referring Physicians, and Patients Through Standardized Structured Cancer Imaging Reporting: The Experience with Female Pelvic MRI Assessment Using O-RADS and a Simulated Cohort Patient Group.

Woo S, Andrieu P, Abu-Rustum N, Broach V, Zivanovic O, Sonoda Y Acad Radiol. 2023; 31(4):1388-1397.

PMID: 37661555 PMC: 11206174. DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2023.08.005.


References
1.
Stomper P, Connolly J, Meyer J, Harris J . Clinically occult ductal carcinoma in situ detected with mammography: analysis of 100 cases with radiologic-pathologic correlation. Radiology. 1989; 172(1):235-41. DOI: 10.1148/radiology.172.1.2544922. View

2.
Barlow W, Chi C, Carney P, Taplin S, DOrsi C, Cutter G . Accuracy of screening mammography interpretation by characteristics of radiologists. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004; 96(24):1840-50. PMC: 3143032. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djh333. View

3.
Berg W, Blume J, Cormack J, Mendelson E, Lehrer D, Bohm-Velez M . Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA. 2008; 299(18):2151-63. PMC: 2718688. DOI: 10.1001/jama.299.18.2151. View

4.
Liberman L, Abramson A, Squires F, Glassman J, Morris E, Dershaw D . The breast imaging reporting and data system: positive predictive value of mammographic features and final assessment categories. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1998; 171(1):35-40. DOI: 10.2214/ajr.171.1.9648759. View

5.
Bosch A, Kessels A, Beets G, Vranken K, Borstlap A, Von Meyenfeldt M . Interexamination variation of whole breast ultrasound. Br J Radiol. 2003; 76(905):328-31. DOI: 10.1259/bjr/17252624. View