PDF
ePub
Citation
Print
Abstract
Purpose
To compare the interpreting performance of mammograms between residents trained in breast imaging and radiologists who attended the mammography boot camp (MBC) suggesting directions for training in breast imaging.
Materials and Methods
We compared the performance of 61 residents trained in breast imaging for more than 2 months at 21 institutions with that of 141 radiologists who attended MBC using the same test case series. We compared mean scores and rates of correct answers between the two groups and examined residents' mean scores varied by institution.
Results
Residents' mean score was 60.9 ± 12.2 and radiologists' mean scores were 56.0 ± 12.2 (p = 0.004) and 78.3 ± 9.2 (p < 0.001) before and after camp, respectively. Residents were superior to pre-camp radiologists in interpreting microcalcifications (70.5% vs. 56.4%; p < 0.001) and true-negative cases (71.8% vs. 59.2%; p < 0.001). They were inferior to post-camp radiologists in interpreting mass/asymmetry (56.7% vs. 86.6%; p < 0.001) and microcalcifications (70.5% vs. 90.3%; p < 0.001). The mean score of all institutions except one was 61.8 ± 9.4.
Figures and Tables
Fig. 1
Mean scores of radiology residents trained in breast imaging and radiologists attended in mammography boot camp. The score of test case series of trained residents was higher than that of pre-camp radiologists whereas it was significantly lower than that of post-camp radiologists.
Fig. 2
The case number 4. An asymtomatic 51-year-old woman. Right mediolateral oblique view (A) shows an irregular spiculated isodense mass (arrow) with architectural distortion and clustered microcalcifications in the upper posterior portion that was confirmed to be invasive ductal carcinoma and ductal carcinoma in situ, respectively. Left mediolateral oblique view (B) shows negative finding.
Fig. 3
The case number 8. An asymtomatic 53-year-old woman. Left mediolateral oblique view (B) shows a round partially obscured isodense mass (arrow) in the lower mid portion that was confirmed to be an invasive ductal carcinoma. Right mediolateral oblique view (A) shows negative finding.
Fig. 4
Mean scores of radiology residents trained in breast imaging according to the institutions.
Note.-Dotted line = mean level of the test scores of all residents enrolled in this study
Table 1
Rates of Correct Answers According to Mammographic Findings: Comparing Radiology Residents Trained in Breast Imaging and Ra-diologists Attended in Mammography Boot Camp
Note.-*Rate of correct answer was significantly lower in trained residents compared to post-camp radiologists.
†Rate of correct answer was significantly higher in trained residents compared to pre-camp radiologists.
‡Rate of correct answer was significantly higher in trained residents compared to post-camp radiologists.
Table 2
Rates of Correct Answers in the Representative Cases: Comparing Radiology Residents Trained in Breast Imaging and Radiologists Attended in Mammography Boot Camp
Note.-Numbers in parentheses are the numbers of correctly answered residents or radiologists.
*Rate of correct answers was significantly higher in trained residents compared with pre-camp radiologists.
†Rate of correct answers was significantly higher in trained residents compared with post-camp radiologists.
DCIS = ductal carcinoma in situ, IDC = invasive ductal carcinoma, No = serial number of the case test series
References
1. Suh M, Choi KS, Lee YY, Jun JK. Trends in cancer screening rates among Korean men and women: results from the Korean National Cancer Screening Survey, 2004-2012. Cancer Res Treat. 2013; 45:86–94.
2. Park B, Choi KS, Lee YY, Jun JK, Seo HG. Cancer screening status in Korea, 2011: results from the Korean National Cancer Screening Survey. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2012; 13:1187–1191.
3. Seo HG, Park JH. Korea Ministry of Health & Welfare, National Cancer Center. Cancer facts & figures 2013. Goyang, Seoul: National Cancer Center, Ministry of Health & Welfare;2013.
4. Kim Y, Jun JK, Choi KS, Lee HY, Park EC. Overview of the National Cancer Screening Programme and the cancer screening status in Korea. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2011; 12:725–730.
5. Kang MH, Park EC, Choi KS, Suh M, Jun JK, Cho E. The National Cancer Screening Program for breast cancer in the Republic of Korea: is it cost-effective? Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2013; 14:2059–2065.
6. Ministry of health and welfare notice 2006-5. Available from: http://www.bokjiro.go.kr/policy/legislationView.do?board_sid=300&data_sid=151815&searchGroup=AR01&searchSort=REG_DESC&pageIndex=1&searchWrd=%EA%B2%80%EC%A7%84&searchCont=&pageUnit=10&searchProgrYn.
7. Ministry of health and welfare notice 2002-23. Available from: http://www.mw.go.kr/front_new/jb/sjb0402vw.jsp?PAR_MENU_ID=03&MENU_ID=030402&BOARD_ID=220&BOARD_FLAG=03&CONT_SEQ=22366&page=1.
8. Lee EH, Jun JK, Kim YM, Bae KK, Hwang KW, Choi BB, et al. Mammography boot camp to improve a quality of National Cancer Screening Program in Korea: a report about a test run in 2012. J Korean Soc Breast Screen. 2013; 10:162–168.
9. Lee EH, Jun JK, Jung SE, Kim YM, Choi N. The efficacy of mammography boot camp to improve the performance of radiologists. Korean J Radiol. 2014; 15:578–585.
10. Lee EH, Lyou CY. Radiology residents' performance in screening mammography interpretation. J Korean Soc Radiol. 2013; 68:333–341.
11. ACR BI-RADS Committee. BI-RADS breast imaging and reporting data system: breast imaging atlas. 4th ed. Reston: American College of Radiology;2003.
12. Brem RF, Baum J, Lechner M, Kaplan S, Souders S, Naul LG, et al. Improvement in sensitivity of screening mammography with computer-aided detection: a multiinstitutional trial. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003; 181:687–693.
13. Rawashdeh MA, Lee WB, Bourne RM, Ryan EA, Pietrzyk MW, Reed WM, et al. Markers of good performance in mammography depend on number of annual readings. Radiology. 2013; 269:61–67.
14. Miglioretti DL, Gard CC, Carney PA, Onega TL, Buist DS, Sickles EA, et al. When radiologists perform best: the learning curve in screening mammogram interpretation. Radiology. 2009; 253:632–640.
XML Download