Suppr超能文献

乳腺摄影技师会影响放射科医生的乳腺钼靶诊断解读表现吗?

Do mammographic technologists affect radiologists' diagnostic mammography interpretative performance?

作者信息

Henderson Louise M, Benefield Thad, Bowling J Michael, Durham Danielle D, Marsh Mary W, Schroeder Bruce F, Yankaskas Bonnie C

机构信息

1 Department of Radiology, The University of North Carolina, CB 7515, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7515.

出版信息

AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015 Apr;204(4):903-8. doi: 10.2214/AJR.14.12903.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine whether the technologist has an effect on the radiologists' interpretative performance of diagnostic mammography.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using data from a community-based mammography registry from 1994 to 2009, we identified 162,755 diagnostic mammograms interpreted by 286 radiologists and performed by 303 mammographic technologists. We calculated sensitivity, false-positive rate, and positive predictive value (PPV) of the recommendation for biopsy from mammography for examinations performed (i.e., images acquired) by each mammographic technologist, separately for conventional (film-screen) and digital modalities. We assessed the variability of these performance measures among mammographic technologists, using mixed effects logistic regression and taking into account the clustering of examinations within women, radiologists, and radiology practices.

RESULTS

Among the 291 technologists performing conventional examinations, mean sensitivity of the examinations performed was 83.0% (95% CI, 80.8-85.2%), mean false-positive rate was 8.5% (95% CI, 8.0-9.0%), and mean PPV of the recommendation for biopsy from mammography was 27.1% (95% CI, 24.8-29.4%). For the 45 technologists performing digital examinations, mean sensitivity of the examinations they performed was 79.6% (95% CI, 73.1-86.2%), mean false-positive rate was 8.8% (95% CI, 7.5-10.0%), and mean PPV of the recommendation for biopsy from mammography was 23.6% (95% CI, 18.8-28.4%). We found significant variation by technologist in the sensitivity, false-positive rate, and PPV of the recommendation for biopsy from mammography for conventional but not digital mammography (p < 0.0001 for all three interpretive performance measures).

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that the technologist has an influence on radiologists' interpretive performance for diagnostic conventional but not digital mammography. Future studies should examine why this difference between modalities exists and determine if similar patterns are observed for screening mammography.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在确定乳腺摄影技师是否会对放射科医生的诊断性乳腺钼靶解读表现产生影响。

材料与方法

利用1994年至2009年一个基于社区的乳腺钼靶登记处的数据,我们识别出由286名放射科医生解读、303名乳腺摄影技师操作的162,755份诊断性乳腺钼靶检查。我们分别针对传统(屏-片)和数字成像方式,计算了每位乳腺摄影技师所进行检查(即获取的图像)的乳腺钼靶活检推荐的敏感度、假阳性率和阳性预测值(PPV)。我们采用混合效应逻辑回归,并考虑到女性、放射科医生和放射科实践中检查的聚类情况,评估了这些乳腺摄影技师之间这些性能指标的变异性。

结果

在进行传统检查的291名技师中,所进行检查的平均敏感度为83.0%(95%可信区间,80.8 - 85.2%),平均假阳性率为8.5%(95%可信区间,8.0 - 9.0%),乳腺钼靶活检推荐的平均PPV为27.1%(95%可信区间,24.8 - 29.4%)。对于进行数字检查的45名技师,他们所进行检查的平均敏感度为79.6%(95%可信区间,73.1 - 86.2%),平均假阳性率为8.8%(95%可信区间,7.5 - 10.0%),乳腺钼靶活检推荐的平均PPV为23.6%(95%可信区间,18.8 - 28.4%)。我们发现,对于传统乳腺钼靶而非数字乳腺钼靶,技师在乳腺钼靶活检推荐的敏感度、假阳性率和PPV方面存在显著差异(所有三项解读性能指标的p均<0.0001)。

结论

我们的结果表明,乳腺摄影技师对诊断性传统乳腺钼靶而非数字乳腺钼靶的放射科医生解读表现有影响。未来的研究应探讨不同成像方式之间存在这种差异的原因,并确定在筛查性乳腺钼靶中是否观察到类似模式。

相似文献

1
Do mammographic technologists affect radiologists' diagnostic mammography interpretative performance?
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015 Apr;204(4):903-8. doi: 10.2214/AJR.14.12903.
2
The influence of mammographic technologists on radiologists' ability to interpret screening mammograms in community practice.
Acad Radiol. 2015 Mar;22(3):278-89. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2014.09.013. Epub 2014 Nov 27.
3
Additional double reading of screening mammograms by radiologic technologists: impact on screening performance parameters.
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007 Aug 1;99(15):1162-70. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djm050. Epub 2007 Jul 24.
4
Variability in interpretive performance at screening mammography and radiologists' characteristics associated with accuracy.
Radiology. 2009 Dec;253(3):641-51. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2533082308. Epub 2009 Oct 28.
5
Variability of interpretive accuracy among diagnostic mammography facilities.
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009 Jun 3;101(11):814-27. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djp105. Epub 2009 May 26.
6
Effect of radiologists' diagnostic work-up volume on interpretive performance.
Radiology. 2014 Nov;273(2):351-64. doi: 10.1148/radiol.14132806. Epub 2014 Jun 24.
9
Patient and Radiologist Characteristics Associated With Accuracy of Two Types of Diagnostic Mammograms.
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015 Aug;205(2):456-63. doi: 10.2214/AJR.14.13672.
10
Reality check: perceived versus actual performance of community mammographers.
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006 Jul;187(1):42-6. doi: 10.2214/AJR.05.0455.

引用本文的文献

1
Using automated software evaluation to improve the performance of breast radiographers in tomosynthesis screening.
Eur Radiol. 2024 Jul;34(7):4738-4749. doi: 10.1007/s00330-023-10457-x. Epub 2023 Nov 29.
2
Call to Action: Creating Resources for Radiology Technologists to Capture Higher Quality Portable Chest X-rays.
Cureus. 2022 Sep 15;14(9):e29197. doi: 10.7759/cureus.29197. eCollection 2022 Sep.
3
Characterizing the Mammography Technologist Workforce in North Carolina.
J Am Coll Radiol. 2015 Dec;12(12 Pt B):1419-26. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2015.06.001.

本文引用的文献

2
Mammographic interpretive volume and diagnostic mammogram interpretation performance in community practice.
Radiology. 2012 Jan;262(1):69-79. doi: 10.1148/radiol.11111026. Epub 2011 Nov 21.
3
Accuracy of diagnostic mammography at facilities serving vulnerable women.
Med Care. 2011 Jan;49(1):67-75. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181f380e0.
4
Variability of interpretive accuracy among diagnostic mammography facilities.
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009 Jun 3;101(11):814-27. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djp105. Epub 2009 May 26.
5
Radiologist characteristics associated with interpretive performance of diagnostic mammography.
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007 Dec 19;99(24):1854-63. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djm238. Epub 2007 Dec 11.
7
Performance benchmarks for diagnostic mammography.
Radiology. 2005 Jun;235(3):775-90. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2353040738.
8
Accuracy of screening mammography interpretation by characteristics of radiologists.
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004 Dec 15;96(24):1840-50. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djh333.
9
Interpreting data from audits when screening and diagnostic mammography outcomes are combined.
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002 Mar;178(3):681-6. doi: 10.2214/ajr.178.3.1780681.
10
Medical audit of diagnostic mammography examinations: comparison with screening outcomes obtained concurrently.
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001 Mar;176(3):729-33. doi: 10.2214/ajr.176.3.1760729.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验