Optimising the diagnostic accuracy of First post-contrAst SubtracTed breast MRI (FAST MRI) through interpretation-training: a multicentre e-learning study, mapping the learning curve of NHS Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) mammogram readers using an enriched dataset.

BACKGROUND: Abbreviated breast MRI (FAST MRI) is being introduced into clinical practice to screen women with mammographically dense breasts or with a personal history of breast cancer. This study aimed to optimise diagnostic accuracy through the adaptation of interpretation-training. METHODS: A FAST MRI interpretation-training programme (short presentations and guided hands-on workstation teaching) was adapted to provide additional training during the assessment task (interpretation of an enriched dataset of 125 FAST MRI scans) by giving readers feedback about the true outcome of each scan immediately after each scan was interpreted (formative assessment). Reader interaction with the FAST MRI scans used developed software (RiViewer) that recorded reader opinions and reading times for each scan. The training programme was additionally adapted for remote e-learning delivery. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, blinded interpretation of an enriched dataset by multiple readers. RESULTS: 43 mammogram readers completed the training, 22 who interpreted breast MRI in their clinical role (Group 1) and 21 who did not (Group 2). Overall sensitivity was 83% (95%CI 81-84%; 1994/2408), specificity 94% (95%CI 93-94%; 7806/8338), readers' agreement with the true outcome kappa = 0.75 (95%CI 0.74-0.77) and diagnostic odds ratio = 70.67 (95%CI 61.59-81.09). Group 1 readers showed similar sensitivity (84%) to Group 2 (82% p = 0.14), but slightly higher specificity (94% v. 93%, p = 0.001). Concordance with the ground truth increased significantly with the number of FAST MRI scans read through the formative assessment task (p = 0.002) but by differing amounts depending on whether or not a reader had previously attended FAST MRI training (interaction p = 0.02). Concordance with the ground truth was significantly associated with reading batch size (p = 0.02), tending to worsen when more than 50 scans were read per batch. Group 1 took a median of 56 seconds (range 8-47,466) to interpret each FAST MRI scan compared with 78 (14-22,830, p < 0.0001) for Group 2. CONCLUSIONS: Provision of immediate feedback to mammogram readers during the assessment test set reading task increased specificity for FAST MRI interpretation and achieved high diagnostic accuracy. Optimal reading-batch size for FAST MRI was 50 reads per batch. Trial registration (25/09/2019): ISRCTN16624917.

Evaluation of an AI Model to Assess Future Breast Cancer Risk.

Background Accurate breast cancer risk assessment after a negative screening result could enable better strategies for early detection. Purpose To evaluate a deep learning algorithm for risk assessment based on digital mammograms. Materials and Methods A retrospective observational matched case-control study was designed using the OPTIMAM Mammography Image Database from the National Health Service Breast Screening Programme in the United Kingdom from February 2010 to September 2019. Patients with breast cancer (cases) were diagnosed following a mammographic screening or between two triannual screening rounds. Controls were matched based on mammography device, screening site, and age. The artificial intelligence (AI) model only used mammograms at screening before diagnosis. The primary objective was to assess model performance, with a secondary objective to assess heterogeneity and calibration slope. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was estimated for 3-year risk. Heterogeneity according to cancer subtype was assessed using a likelihood ratio interaction test. Statistical significance was set at P < .05. Results Analysis included patients with screen-detected (median age, 60 years [IQR, 55-65 years]; 2044 female, including 1528 with invasive cancer and 503 with ductal carcinoma in situ [DCIS]) or interval (median age, 59 years [IQR, 53-65 years]; 696 female, including 636 with invasive cancer and 54 with DCIS) breast cancer and 1:1 matched controls, each with a complete set of mammograms at the screening preceding diagnosis. The AI model had an overall AUC of 0.68 (95% CI: 0.66, 0.70), with no evidence of a significant difference between interval and screen-detected (AUC, 0.69 vs 0.67; P = .085) cancer. The calibration slope was 1.13 (95% CI: 1.01, 1.26). There was similar performance for the detection of invasive cancer versus DCIS (AUC, 0.68 vs 0.66; P = .057). The model had higher performance for advanced cancer risk (AUC, 0.72 ≥stage II vs 0.66

Talking about human papillomavirus and cancer: development of consultation guides through lay and professional stakeholder coproduction using qualitative, quantitative and secondary data.

BACKGROUND: High-risk human papillomaviruses (HPVs) cause all cervical cancer and the majority of vulvar, vaginal, anal, penile and oropharyngeal cancers. Although HPV is the most common sexually transmitted infection, public awareness of this is poor. In addition, many clinicians lack adequate knowledge or confidence to discuss sexual transmission and related sensitive issues. Complex science needs to be communicated in a clear, digestible, honest and salient way. Therefore, the aim of this study was to coproduce with patients who have cancer appropriate resources to guide these highly sensitive and difficult consultations. METHODS: A matrix of evidence developed from a variety of sources, including a systematic review and telephone interviews with clinicians, supported the production of a draft list of approximately 100 potential educational messages. These were refined in face-to-face patient interviews using card-sorting techniques, and tested in cognitive debrief interviews to produce a â€Ëœfast and frugal’ knowledge tool. RESULTS: We developed three versions of a consultation guide, each comprising a clinician guidance sheet and patient information leaflet for gynaecological (cervical, vaginal, vulvar), anal or oropharyngeal cancers. That cancer could be caused by a sexually transmitted virus acquired many years previously was surprising to many and shocking to a few patients. However, they found the information clear, helpful and reassuring. Clinicians acknowledged a lack of confidence in explaining HPV, welcomed the clinician guidance sheets and considered printed information for patients particularly useful. CONCLUSION: Because of the â€Ëœshock factor’, clinicians will need to approach the discussion of HPV with sensitivity and take individual needs and preferences into account, but we provide a novel, rigorously developed and tested resource which should have broad applicability in the UK National Health Service and other health systems.