Changes in Reader Performance During Sequential Reading of Breast Cancer Screening Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Examinations
- Deputy Editor:
Linda Moy
- Scientific Editor: Elizabeth Weintraub
Abstract
Observational cross-sectional data from a large academic screening practice show significant changes in false-positive rates and interpretation times during batch reading of digital breast tomosynthesis images.
Background
Studies suggest that readers experience perceptual adaptation when interpreting batched screening mammograms, which may serve as a mechanism for improved performance.
Purpose
To analyze clinical digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening data to evaluate changes in reader performance during sequential batch reading.
Materials and Methods
This observational retrospective study used data from the radiology information system collected for screening DBT examinations performed from January 2018 to December 2019. The reference standard was established based on pathology results, if applicable, or imaging findings at 1-year follow-up. Examinations were aggregated into batches, defined as a sequence of cases for a given reader with differences in interexamination time of 10 minutes or less. Mixed-effect models were used to evaluate performance and timing across batch positions. Statistical adjustments accounted for potential confounders, including patient characteristics (age, breast density), reading factors (day of week, time of day), and between-reader heterogeneity.
Results
The dataset included 121 652 examinations (median patient age, 61 years [IQR, 53–69 years]), including 1081 cancers interpreted by 15 radiologists. Unadjusted false-positive rates decreased from an averaged 15.5% at the first within-batch examination to 10.5% after three sequentially read examinations (P < .001), without a significant change in sensitivity (82.6% vs 84.2%; P = .15). The interpretation time consistently decreased, achieving a substantial reduction in longer batches (average 2.8 to 2.2 minutes for noncancer examinations; P < .001). Adjustment for sampling bias and confounders (patient age, breast density, day of week, time of day; all P < .005) reduced the effect on false-positive rates (11.5% to 9.4% after three examinations; P < .001) and interpretation time (3.2 to 2.7 minutes for noncancer examinations; P < .001).
Conclusion
Radiologists showed improved recall rates and interpretation times without change in sensitivity over the course of batch reading of DBT screening examinations.
© RSNA, 2024
See also the editorial by Iima and Satake in this issue.
References
- 1. . Breast tomosynthesis in clinical practice: initial results. Eur Radiol 2010;20(1):16–24.
- 2. . Breast cancer screening with tomosynthesis—initial experiences. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2011;147(1-2):180–183.
- 3. . Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): initial experience in a clinical setting. Acta Radiol 2012;53(5):524–529.
- 4. . Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. JAMA 2014;311(24):2499–2507.
- 5. . Clinical performance metrics of 3D digital breast tomosynthesis compared with 2D digital mammography for breast cancer screening in community practice. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2014;203(3):687–693.
- 6. . Detection of mammographically occult architectural distortion on digital breast tomosynthesis screening: initial clinical experience. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2014;203(1):216–222.
- 7. MQSA National Statistics. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. https://www.fda.gov/radiation-emitting-products/mqsa-insights/mqsa-national-statistics. Accessed September 8, 2023.
- 8. . Changing case Order to Optimise patterns of Performance in mammography Screening (CO-OPS): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 2014;15(1):17.
- 9. . Effect of using the same vs different order for second readings of screening mammograms on rates of breast cancer detection: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2016;315(18):1956–1965.
- 10. . Does it matter for the radiologists’ performance whether they read short or long batches in organized mammographic screening? Eur Radiol 2021;31(12):9548–9555.
- 11. . Visual adaptation and the amplitude spectra of radiological images. Cogn Res Princ Implic 2018;3(1):3.
- 12. . Adaptation and visual search in mammographic images. Atten Percept Psychophys 2015;77(4):1081–1087.
- 13. . Adaptation aftereffects in the perception of radiological images. PLoS One 2013;8(10):e76175.
- 14. . Comparing screening mammography for early breast cancer detection in Vermont and Norway. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008;100(15):1082–1091.
- 15. . Comparing sensitivity and specificity of screening mammography in the United States and Denmark. Int J Cancer 2015;137(9):2198–2207.
- 16. . Cross-national comparison of screening mammography accuracy measures in U.S., Norway, and Spain. Eur Radiol 2016;26(8):2520–2528.
- 17. . Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 2009;151(10):716–726,W-236.
- 18. . Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology, 2013.
- 19. . Mammographic breast density and family history of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;95(7):556–558.
- 20. . Longitudinal measurement of clinical mammographic breast density to improve estimation of breast cancer risk. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007;99(5):386–395.
- 21. . Comparing visually assessed BI-RADS breast density and automated volumetric breast density software: a cross-sectional study in a breast cancer screening setting. PLoS One 2015;10(9):e0136667.
- 22. . Cancer-rates in inter-exam-time defined batches of screening DBT images. In:
Medical Imaging 2024: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment , vol 12929. SPIE, 2024; 112–117. - 23. . Vigilance decrement and radiological reporting. In: Megaw ED, ed. Contemporary Ergonomics. Taylor & Francis, 1989; 461–467.
- 24. . Computer-aided detection with screening mammography: improving performance or simply shifting the operating point? Radiology 2006;239(3):916–917; author reply 917–918.
- 25. . The use of batch reading to improve the performance of screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;185(3):790–796.
- 26. . Batch reading and interrupted interpretation of digital screening mammograms without and with tomosynthesis. J Am Coll Radiol 2021;18(2):280–293.
- 27. . Online or offline: does it matter? A review of existing interpretation approaches and their effect on screening mammography metrics, patient satisfaction, and cost. J Breast Imaging 2022;4(1):3–9.
- 28. . Visual adaptation to medical images: a comparison of digital mammography and tomosynthesis. J Med Imaging (Bellingham) 2023;10(Suppl 1):S11909.
- 29. . Sequential reading effects in Dutch screening mammography. In: Medical Imaging 2020: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment, vol 11316. SPIE, 2020; 113160G.
- 30. . Adaptation and visual coding. J Vis 2011;11(5):3.
- 31. . Visual adaptation: physiology, mechanisms, and functional benefits. J Neurophysiol 2007;97(5):3155–3164.
- 32. . Visual adaptation: neural, psychological and computational aspects. Vision Res 2007;47(25):3125–3131.
- 33. . Enhancing radiologist screening performance by mammogram reading ordering based on characteristics that promote visual adaptation. Radiology 2024;313(1):e240237.
- 34. . National performance benchmarks for modern screening digital mammography: update from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Radiology 2017;283(1):49–58.
- 35. . National performance benchmarks for screening digital breast tomosynthesis: update from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Radiology 2023;307(4):e222499.
Article History
Received: Oct 26 2023Revision requested: Nov 15 2023
Revision received: Aug 5 2024
Accepted: Aug 15 2024
Published online: Nov 12 2024
