Using Breast Radiographers' Reports As a Second Opinion for Radiologists' Readings of Microcalcifications in Digital Mammography

Overview

Journal Br J Radiol

Publisher Oxford University Press

Specialty Radiology

Date 2014 Dec 24

PMID 25536443

Authors

R Tanaka

M Takamori

Y Uchiyama

R M Nishikawa

J Shiraishi

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate a practical method for incorporating radiographers' reports with radiologists' readings of digital mammograms.

Methods: This simulation study was conducted using data from a free-response receiver operating characteristic observer study obtained with 75 cases (25 malignant, 25 benign and 25 normal cases) of digital mammograms. Each of the rating scores obtained by six breast radiographers was utilized as a second opinion for four radiologists' readings with the radiographers' reports. A logical "OR" operation with various criteria settings was simulated for deciding an appropriate method to select a radiographer's report in all combinations of radiologists and radiographers. The average figure of merit (FOM) of the radiologists' performances was statistically analysed using a jackknife procedure (JAFROC) to verify the clinical utility of using radiographers' reports.

Results: Potential improvement of the average FOM of the radiologists' performances for identifying malignant microcalcifications could be expected when using radiographers' reports as a second opinion. When the threshold value of 2.6 in Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS®) assessment was applied to adopt/reject a radiographer's report, FOMs of radiologists' performances were further improved.

Conclusion: When using breast radiographers' reports as a second opinion, radiologists' performances potentially improved when reading digital mammograms. It could be anticipated that radiologists' performances were improved further by setting a threshold value on the BI-RADS assessment provided by the radiographers.

Advances In Knowledge: For the effective use of a radiographer's report as a second opinion, radiographers' rating scores and its criteria setting for adoption/rejection would be necessary.

References

Jiang Y, Nishikawa R, Schmidt R, Metz C . Comparison of independent double readings and computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) for the diagnosis of breast calcifications. Acad Radiol. 2006; 13(1):84-94. DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2005.09.086. View

Duijm L, Groenewoud J, Fracheboud J, van Ineveld B, Roumen R, de Koning H . Introduction of additional double reading of mammograms by radiographers: effects on a biennial screening programme outcome. Eur J Cancer. 2008; 44(9):1223-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.03.003. View

Duijm L, Groenewoud J, Fracheboud J, de Koning H . Additional double reading of screening mammograms by radiologic technologists: impact on screening performance parameters. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007; 99(15):1162-70. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djm050. View

Doi K, Macmahon H, Katsuragawa S, Nishikawa R, Jiang Y . Computer-aided diagnosis in radiology: potential and pitfalls. Eur J Radiol. 1999; 31(2):97-109. DOI: 10.1016/s0720-048x(99)00016-9. View

FRIEDENBERG R . The role of the supertechnologist. Radiology. 2000; 215(3):630-3. DOI: 10.1148/radiology.215.3.r00jn49630. View

Wivell G, Denton E, Eve C, Inglis J, Harvey I . Can radiographers read screening mammograms?. Clin Radiol. 2003; 58(1):63-7. DOI: 10.1053/crad.2002.1087. View

Gur D, Rockette H, Armfield D, Blachar A, Bogan J, Brancatelli G . Prevalence effect in a laboratory environment. Radiology. 2003; 228(1):10-4. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2281020709. View

Chakraborty D, Berbaum K . Observer studies involving detection and localization: modeling, analysis, and validation. Med Phys. 2004; 31(8):2313-30. DOI: 10.1118/1.1769352. View

Pauli R, Hammond S, Cooke J, Ansell J . Radiographers as film readers in screening mammography: an assessment of competence under test and screening conditions. Br J Radiol. 1996; 69(817):10-4. DOI: 10.1259/0007-1285-69-817-10. View

10.

Beam C, Sullivan D, Layde P . Effect of human variability on independent double reading in screening mammography. Acad Radiol. 1996; 3(11):891-7. DOI: 10.1016/s1076-6332(96)80296-0. View

11.

Gur D, Bandos A, Cohen C, Hakim C, Hardesty L, Ganott M . The "laboratory" effect: comparing radiologists' performance and variability during prospective clinical and laboratory mammography interpretations. Radiology. 2008; 249(1):47-53. PMC: 2607194. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2491072025. View

12.

Gilbert F, Astley S, Gillan M, Agbaje O, Wallis M, James J . Single reading with computer-aided detection for screening mammography. N Engl J Med. 2008; 359(16):1675-84. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa0803545. View

13.

Chakraborty D . Validation and statistical power comparison of methods for analyzing free-response observer performance studies. Acad Radiol. 2008; 15(12):1554-66. PMC: 2705988. DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2008.07.018. View

14.

Boyer B, Balleyguier C, Granat O, Pharaboz C . CAD in questions/answers Review of the literature. Eur J Radiol. 2008; 69(1):24-33. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2008.07.042. View

15.

Rao V, Levin D, Parker L, Cavanaugh B, Frangos A, Sunshine J . How widely is computer-aided detection used in screening and diagnostic mammography?. J Am Coll Radiol. 2010; 7(10):802-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2010.05.019. View

16.

Bennett R, Sellars S, Blanks R, Moss S . An observational study to evaluate the performance of units using two radiographers to read screening mammograms. Clin Radiol. 2011; 67(2):114-21. DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2011.06.015. View

17.

Cole E, Zhang Z, Marques H, Nishikawa R, Hendrick R, Yaffe M . Assessing the stand-alone sensitivity of computer-aided detection with cancer cases from the Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012; 199(3):W392-401. PMC: 3649852. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.11.7255. View

18.

Shiraishi J, Fukuoka D, Hara T, Abe H . Basic concepts and development of an all-purpose computer interface for ROC/FROC observer study. Radiol Phys Technol. 2012; 6(1):35-41. DOI: 10.1007/s12194-012-0166-1. View

19.

van den Biggelaar F, Nelemans P, Flobbe K . Performance of radiographers in mammogram interpretation: a systematic review. Breast. 2007; 17(1):85-90. DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2007.07.035. View

20.

Gilbert F, Astley S, McGee M, Gillan M, Boggis C, Griffiths P . Single reading with computer-aided detection and double reading of screening mammograms in the United Kingdom National Breast Screening Program. Radiology. 2006; 241(1):47-53. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2411051092. View