Mammographic interpretation in Vietnam: Tailored educational strategies are needed to increase clinicians' expertise.

AIM: Breast cancer incidence is rapidly increasing throughout South East Asia, highlighting the need for high-quality early diagnosis and treatment. This study aims to investigate the efficacy of mammography detection in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City (HCMC), Vietnam, using data from Australian radiologists as a benchmark; factors that influence performance will be highlighted. METHODS: A total of 53, 35 and 52 clinicians from Australia, HCMC and Hanoi, respectively, examined and diagnosed a test set of 60 mammograms, 20 of which contained cancers. Each clinician completed an accompanying questionnaire establishing demographic and experiential characteristics. The performance metrics of specificity, sensitivity, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), location sensitivity and Jackknife free-response ROC (JAFROC) figure of merit were used to evaluate clinicians performance. Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis statistical methods were employed to establish significance. RESULTS: Vietnamese radiologists demonstrated significantly lower sensitivity, AUC, lesion sensitivity and JAFROC scores compared to Australian radiologists. There was no difference in performance between clinicians from Hanoi and HCMC. However, certain performance features (older and more experienced clinicians compared with their younger, less experienced counterparts, readers who read more compared with fewer mammograms per week, clinicians with greater radiological experience and clinicians that completed a fellowship) demonstrated significantly better performances. CONCLUSIONS: The significant difference in diagnostic efficacy of mammograms between Vietnam and Australia identifies the need for improvements in breast radiology training, management and practice. Cost-effective solutions are available that can improve the reading efficacy of clinicians, and consequently health outcomes for Vietnamese women.

Interpretative characteristics and case features associated with the performances of radiologists in reading mammograms: A study from a non-screening population in Asia.

AIMS: To explore radiologist characteristics and case features associated with diagnostic performances in cancer detection on mammograms in a South East Asian population. METHODS: Fifty-three radiologists reported 60 mammographic examinations which consisted of 40 normal and 20 cancer-containing cases at the BREAST workshops. Radiologists were asked to examine each mammogram using the BIRADS on diagnostic monitors. Differences in reader characteristics and case features between correct and incorrect decisions were assessed separately for cancer and normal cases. Univariate and multivariate logistic regressions were applied to generate odds ratios (OR) for significant factors related to correct decisions. RESULTS: Radiologists who spent ≥10 hours/week reporting mammograms had a higher possibility of detecting cancer lesions (OR = 1.6; P = 0.01). A higher rate of accuracy in reporting negative cases was associated with female radiologists (OR = 1.4; P = 0.002), radiologists who read ≤20 mammograms per week (OR = 1.5; P < 0.0001), had completed training course (OR = 1.7; P < 0.0001) or wore eyeglasses (OR = 1.4; P = 0.01). Cancer cases with breast density >50% (OR = 2.1; P < 0.0001), having abnormal lesions ≥9 mm (OR = 1.8; P < 0.0001), or displaying calcifications, a discrete mass or nonspecific density (OR = 1.6; P < 0.0001) were recorded with a higher detection rate by radiologists than other cases. Lesions located on the right breasts (OR = 1.8; P < 0.0001) or found in the lower inner, upper outer or mixed locations (OR = 2.7; P < 0.0001) were also recorded with a better diagnostic possibility compared with other lesions. CONCLUSION: This work identified key features related to diagnostic accuracy of breast cancer on mammograms in a nonscreening population, which is helpful for developing appropriate strategies to improve breast cancer detectability of radiologists.