Comparison of readers' detection of right-sided and left-sided breast cancers and microcalcifications.

INTRODUCTION: Aim of this study was to determine if there is a statistically and clinically significant difference in diagnostic performance (cancer diagnosis) and perceptual performance (microcalcification detection) when detecting left-sided or right-sided breast cancers and microcalcifications. METHODS: Eight radiologist readers (8-20 years experience in radiology, five current BreastScreen readers) read a set of 100 digital mammograms (23/100 had proven malignancies and 52/100 had confirmed microcalcifications) for three reads (random case order in each read). The same mammograms were presented on two reads, serving as the baseline reads. The data from these reads were used to calculate intra-observer variability (presented in an earlier study). The experimental read consisted of left-right mirror images of the original mammograms. In each read, the radiologists were requested to 'clear' or 'call-back' cases and to indicate if any microcalcifications (benign and malignant) were present on the mammograms. Reading conditions were standardised. RESULTS: Comparison of intra-reader performance difference for left-sided versus right-sided breast cancers and microcalcifications with intra-observer variability for breast cancer diagnosis and microcalcification detection, respectively, revealed no clinically significant difference between left-sided and right-sided detections. Per-case analysis showed more left-sided breast cancers and microcalcifications correctly detected. This left-right difference in detection did not reach statistical significance, P-value of 0.28 for cancer diagnosis and 0.74 for microcalcification detection. CONCLUSION: There is no statistically or clinically significant difference between left-sided and right-sided breast cancer diagnosis and microcalcification detection in a group of experienced radiologists. Individual reading patterns do not affect detection rates of left-sided and right-sided cancers and microcalcifications.

Intrareader variability in mammographic diagnostic and perceptual performance amongst experienced radiologists in Australia.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was, for a group of experienced radiologists, to identify the magnitude of and statistical significance of intrareader variability in mammographic diagnostic performance or cancer diagnosis and mammographic perceptual performance or microcalcification detection. METHODS: Eight radiologist readers (8-30 years experience in radiology, five current BreastScreen readers) read a set of 100 digital mammograms on two separate reads with random case orders. Twenty-three of the 100 had proven malignancies, and 52 of the 100 had confirmed microcalcifications. The same mammograms were presented for both reads. The radiologists were requested to clear or call back cases and to indicate if any benign and malignant microcalcifications were present on the mammograms. Reading conditions were standardised. RESULTS: Intrareader variability in accuracy was demonstrated to be between 0% and 6% for the diagnostic task of breast cancer diagnosis and between 0% and 16% for the perceptual task of microcalcification detection. Intrareader agreement in the group of readers was high; between 75% and 93% (κ=0.36-0.72) for cancer diagnosis and between 77.5% and 93% (κ=0.17-0.77) for microcalcification detection. There was no correlation between reader's experience in radiology or being a BreastScreen reader and level of intrareader variability in cancer diagnosis and microcalcification detection. CONCLUSION: There exists intrareader variability in diagnostic and perceptual performance. Despite this variability, intrareader agreement remains high.