Analysis of article using Artificial Intelligence tools
|Author||Chen Y.; James J.J.; Michalopoulou E.; Darker I.T.; Jenkins J.|
|Title||Performance of Radiologists and Radiographers in Double Reading Mammograms: The UK National Health Service Breast Screening Program|
Chen Y.; James J.J.; Michalopoulou E.; Darker I.T.; Jenkins J. Performance of Radiologists and Radiographers in Double Reading Mammograms: The UK National Health Service Breast Screening Program,Radiology 306 1
|Keywords||Breast Neoplasms; Early Detection of Cancer; England; Female; Humans; Mammography; Mass Screening; Radiologists; Retrospective Studies; Sensitivity and Specificity; State Medicine; breast tumor; early cancer diagnosis; England; female; human; mammography; mass screening; national health service; procedures; radiologist; retrospective study; sensitivity and specificity
|Link to article|| https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85144590184&doi=10.1148%2fradiol.212951&partnerID=40&md5=8db60370ed5cc8f485667002f6ca1e8c
|Abstract||Background Double reading can be used in screening mammography, but it is labor intensive. There is limited evidence on whether trained radiographers (ie, technologists) may be used to provide double reading. Purpose To compare the performance of radiologists and radiographers double reading screening mammograms, considering reader experience level. Materials and Methods In this retrospective study, performance and experience data were obtained for radiologists and radiographer readers of all screening mammograms in England from April 2015 to March 2016. Cancer detection rate (CDR), recall rate (RR), and positive predictive value (PPV) of recall based on biopsy-proven findings were calculated for first readers. Performance metrics were analyzed according to reader professional group and years of reading experience using the analysis of variance test. P values less than .05 were considered to indicate statistically significant difference. Results During the study period, 401 readers (224 radiologists and 177 radiographers) double read 1 404 395 screening digital mammograms. There was no difference in CDR between radiologist and radiographer readers (mean, 7.84 vs 7.53 per 1000 examinations, respectively; P = .08) and no difference for readers with more than 10 years of experience compared with 5 years or fewer years of experience, regardless of professional group (mean, 7.75 vs 7.71 per 1000 examinations respectively, P = .87). No difference in the mean RR was observed between radiologists and radiographer readers (5.0% vs 5.2%, respectively, P = .63). A lower RR was seen for readers with more than 10 years of experience compared with 5 years or fewer, regardless of professional group (mean, 4.8% vs 5.8%, respectively; P = .001). No variation in PPV was observed between them (P = .42), with PPV values of 17.1% for radiologists versus 16.1% for radiographers. A higher PPV was seen for readers with more than 10 years of experience compared with 5 years or less, regardless of professional group (mean, 17.5% and 14.9%, respectively; P = .02). Conclusion No difference in performance was observed between radiographers and radiologists reading screening mammograms in a program that used double reading. Published under a CC BY 4.0 license Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Hooley and Durand in this issue.