The Library
Evaluating the effectiveness of abbreviated breast MRI (abMRI) interpretation training for mammogram readers : a multi-centre study assessing diagnostic performance, using an enriched dataset
Tools
Tools
Tools
The FAST MRI Study Group (Including:
). (2022) Evaluating the effectiveness of abbreviated breast MRI (abMRI) interpretation training for mammogram readers : a multi-centre study assessing diagnostic performance, using an enriched dataset. Breast Cancer Research, 24 (1). 55. doi:10.1186/s13058-022-01549-5 ISSN 1465-542X.
|
PDF
WRAP-Evaluating-the-effectiveness-of-abbreviated-breast-MRI-abMRI-interpretation-training-for-mammogram-readers-Marshall-22.pdf - Published Version - Requires a PDF viewer. Available under License Creative Commons Attribution 4.0. Download (2246Kb) | Preview |
Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13058-022-01549-5
Abstract
Background
Abbreviated breast MRI (abMRI) is being introduced in breast screening trials and clinical practice, particularly for women with dense breasts. Upscaling abMRI provision requires the workforce of mammogram readers to learn to effectively interpret abMRI.
The purpose of this study was to examine the diagnostic accuracy of mammogram readers to interpret abMRI after a single day of standardised small-group training and to compare diagnostic performance of mammogram readers experienced in full-protocol breast MRI (fpMRI) interpretation (Group 1) with that of those without fpMRI interpretation experience (Group 2).
Methods
Mammogram readers were recruited from six NHS Breast Screening Programme sites. Small-group hands-on workstation training was provided, with subsequent prospective, independent, blinded interpretation of an enriched dataset with known outcome. A simplified form of abMRI (first post-contrast subtracted images (FAST MRI), displayed as maximum-intensity projection (MIP) and subtracted slice stack) was used. Per-breast and per-lesion diagnostic accuracy analysis was undertaken, with comparison across groups, and double-reading simulation of a consecutive screening subset.
Results
37 readers (Group 1: 17, Group 2: 20) completed the reading task of 125 scans (250 breasts) (total = 9250 reads). Overall sensitivity was 86% (95% confidence interval (CI) 84–87%; 1776/2072) and specificity 86% (95%CI 85–86%; 6140/7178). Group 1 showed significantly higher sensitivity (843/952; 89%; 95%CI 86–91%) and higher specificity (2957/3298; 90%; 95%CI 89–91%) than Group 2 (sensitivity = 83%; 95%CI 81–85% (933/1120) p < 0.0001; specificity = 82%; 95%CI 81–83% (3183/3880) p < 0.0001). Inter-reader agreement was higher for Group 1 (kappa = 0.73; 95%CI 0.68–0.79) than for Group 2 (kappa = 0.51; 95%CI 0.45–0.56). Specificity improved for Group 2, from the first 55 cases (81%) to the remaining 70 (83%) (p = 0.02) but not for Group 1 (90–89% p = 0.44), whereas sensitivity remained consistent for both Group 1 (88–89%) and Group 2 (83–84%).
Conclusions
Single-day abMRI interpretation training for mammogram readers achieved an overall diagnostic performance within benchmarks published for fpMRI but was insufficient for diagnostic accuracy of mammogram readers new to breast MRI to match that of experienced fpMRI readers. Novice MRI reader performance improved during the reading task, suggesting that additional training could further narrow this performance gap.
| Item Type: | Journal Article | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Subjects: | R Medicine > RC Internal medicine > RC0254 Neoplasms. Tumors. Oncology (including Cancer) | |||||||||
| Divisions: | Faculty of Science, Engineering and Medicine > Medicine > Warwick Medical School > Clinical Trials Unit Faculty of Science, Engineering and Medicine > Medicine > Warwick Medical School |
|||||||||
| Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH): | Breast -- Magnetic resonance imaging, Breast -- Cancer -- Diagnosis, Magnetic resonance imaging, Breast -- Radiography -- Technological innovation | |||||||||
| Journal or Publication Title: | Breast Cancer Research | |||||||||
| Publisher: | BioMed Central Ltd. | |||||||||
| ISSN: | 1465-542X | |||||||||
| Official Date: | 30 July 2022 | |||||||||
| Dates: |
|
|||||||||
| Volume: | 24 | |||||||||
| Number: | 1 | |||||||||
| Number of Pages: | 16 | |||||||||
| Article Number: | 55 | |||||||||
| DOI: | 10.1186/s13058-022-01549-5 | |||||||||
| Status: | Peer Reviewed | |||||||||
| Publication Status: | Published | |||||||||
| Access rights to Published version: | Open Access (Creative Commons) | |||||||||
| Date of first compliant deposit: | 2 August 2022 | |||||||||
| Date of first compliant Open Access: | 3 August 2022 | |||||||||
| RIOXX Funder/Project Grant: |
|
Request changes or add full text files to a record
Repository staff actions (login required)
 |
View Item |
Downloads
Downloads per month over past year
