These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Radiologists' interpretive efficiency and variability in true- and false-positive detection when screen-reading with tomosynthesis (3D-mammography) relative to standard mammography in population screening.
    Author: Svahn TM, Macaskill P, Houssami N.
    Journal: Breast; 2015 Dec; 24(6):687-93. PubMed ID: 26433751.
    Abstract:
    We examined interpretive efficiency and variability in true- and false-positive detection (TP, FP) for radiologists screen-reading with digital breast tomosynthesis as adjunct to full-field digital mammography (2D/3D) relative to 2D alone in population-based screening studies. A systematic literature search was performed to identify screening studies that provided radiologist-specific data for TP and FP detection. Radiologist interpretive efficiency (trade-off between TPs and FPs) was calculated using the FP:TP ratio which expresses the number of FP recalls for each screen-detected breast cancer. We modeled a pooled FP:TP ratio to assess variability in radiologists' interpretive efficiency at study-level using random effects logistic regression. FP:TP ratio improved (ratio decreased) for 2D/3D screen-reading (relative to 2D) for a majority of radiologists (18 of 22) across all studies. Variability in radiologists' FP:TP ratio was consistently lower in all studies for 2D/3D screen-reading, as suggested by lower variance in ratios. Study-level pooled FP:TP ratio for 2D- and 2D/3D-mammography respectively, were 5.96 (95%CI: 4.08 to 8.72) and 3.17 (95%CI: 2.25 to 4.47) for the STORM trial; 10.25 (95%CI: 6.42 to 16.35) and 7.07 (95%CI: 4.99 to 10.02) for the Oslo trial; and 20.84 (95%CI: 13.95 to 31.12) and 8.37 (95%CI: 5.87 to 11.93) for the Houston study. This transfers into study-level improved interpretative efficiencies of 48%, 30% and 55%, respectively, for 2D/3D screen-reading (relative to 2D). In summary, study-level FP:TP trade-off improved using 2D/3D-mammography for all studies, which was also seen for most individual radiologists. There was variability in the FP:TP trade-off between readers and studies for 2D-as well as for 2D/3D-interpretations but variability in radiologists' interpretive efficiency was relatively lower using 2D/3D-mammography.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]