| Autor: |
Abbey CK; From the Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of California-Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, Calif (C.K.A.); Department of Biostatistics, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pa (A.I.B.); Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Magee-Womens Hospital, 300 Halket St, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 (A.I.B., M.L.Z.); and Department of Psychology, University of Nevada-Reno, Reno, Nev (M.K.P., M.A.W.)., Bandos AI; From the Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of California-Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, Calif (C.K.A.); Department of Biostatistics, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pa (A.I.B.); Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Magee-Womens Hospital, 300 Halket St, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 (A.I.B., M.L.Z.); and Department of Psychology, University of Nevada-Reno, Reno, Nev (M.K.P., M.A.W.)., Parthasarathy MK; From the Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of California-Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, Calif (C.K.A.); Department of Biostatistics, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pa (A.I.B.); Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Magee-Womens Hospital, 300 Halket St, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 (A.I.B., M.L.Z.); and Department of Psychology, University of Nevada-Reno, Reno, Nev (M.K.P., M.A.W.)., Webster MA; From the Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of California-Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, Calif (C.K.A.); Department of Biostatistics, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pa (A.I.B.); Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Magee-Womens Hospital, 300 Halket St, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 (A.I.B., M.L.Z.); and Department of Psychology, University of Nevada-Reno, Reno, Nev (M.K.P., M.A.W.)., Zuley ML; From the Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of California-Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, Calif (C.K.A.); Department of Biostatistics, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pa (A.I.B.); Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Magee-Womens Hospital, 300 Halket St, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 (A.I.B., M.L.Z.); and Department of Psychology, University of Nevada-Reno, Reno, Nev (M.K.P., M.A.W.). |
| Abstrakt: |
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. |
