Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Screening mammography: test set data can reasonably describe actual clinical reporting.
Soh, BaoLin P; Lee, Warwick; McEntee, Mark F; Kench, Peter L; Reed, Warren M; Heard, Rob; Chakraborty, Dev P; Brennan, Patrick C.
Afiliación
  • Soh BP; Medical Image Optimisation and Perception Group, Discipline of Medical Radiation Sciences (C42 Cumberland Campus, University of Sydney, East Street, Room M221, Sydney, NSW 2141, Australia. bsoh6456@uni.sydney.edu.au
Radiology ; 268(1): 46-53, 2013 Jul.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23481165
ABSTRACT

PURPOSE:

To establish the extent to which test set reading can represent actual clinical reporting in screening mammography. MATERIALS AND

METHODS:

Institutional ethics approval was granted, and informed consent was obtained from each participating screen reader. The need for informed consent with respect to the use of patient materials was waived. Two hundred mammographic examinations were selected from examinations reported by 10 individual expert screen readers, resulting in 10 reader-specific test sets. Data generated from actual clinical reports were compared with three test set conditions clinical test set reading with prior images, laboratory test set reading with prior images, and laboratory test set reading without prior images. A further set of five expert screen readers was asked to interpret a common set of images in two identical test set conditions to establish a baseline for intraobserver variability. Confidence scores (from 1 to 4) were assigned to the respective decisions made by readers. Region-of-interest (ROI) figures of merit (FOMs) and side-specific sensitivity and specificity were described for the actual clinical reporting of each reader-specific test set and were compared with those for the three test set conditions. Agreement between pairs of readings was performed by using the Kendall coefficient of concordance.

RESULTS:

Moderate or acceptable levels of agreement were evident (W = 0.69-0.73, P < .01) when describing group performance between actual clinical reporting and test set conditions that were reasonably close to the established baseline (W = 0.77, P < .01) and were lowest when prior images were excluded. Higher median values for ROI FOMs were demonstrated for the test set conditions than for the actual clinical reporting values; this was possibly linked to changes in sensitivity.

CONCLUSION:

Reasonable levels of agreement between actual clinical reporting and test set conditions can be achieved, although inflated sensitivity may be evident with test set conditions.
Asunto(s)

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Competencia Profesional / Neoplasias de la Mama / Mamografía Tipo de estudio: Diagnostic_studies / Prognostic_studies / Screening_studies Aspecto: Ethics Límite: Female / Humans Idioma: En Revista: Radiology Año: 2013 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Australia

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Competencia Profesional / Neoplasias de la Mama / Mamografía Tipo de estudio: Diagnostic_studies / Prognostic_studies / Screening_studies Aspecto: Ethics Límite: Female / Humans Idioma: En Revista: Radiology Año: 2013 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Australia