Rosenkrantz Andrew B, Ayoola Abimbola, Hoffman David, Khasgiwala Anunita, Prabhu Vinay, Smereka Paul, Somberg Molly, Taneja Samir S
1 Department of Radiology, Center for Biomedical Imaging, NYU School of Medicine, NYU Langone Medical Center, 660 First Ave, 3rd Fl, New York, NY 10016.
2 Department of Urologic Oncology, NYU School of Medicine, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, NY.
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017 Mar;208(3):W92-W100. doi: 10.2214/AJR.16.16876. Epub 2016 Dec 27.
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the roles of self-directed learning and continual feedback in the learning curve for tumor detection by novice readers of prostate MRI.
A total of 124 prostate MRI examinations classified as positive (n = 52; single Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System [PI-RADS] category 3 or higher lesion showing Gleason score ≥ 7 tumor at MRI-targeted biopsy) or negative (n = 72; PI-RADS category 2 or lower and negative biopsy) for detectable tumor were included. These were divided into four equal-sized batches, each with matching numbers of positive and negative examinations. Six second-year radiology residents reviewed examinations to localize tumors. Three of the six readers received feedback after each examination showing the preceding case's solution. The learning curve, plotting accuracy over time, was assessed by the Akaike information criterion (AIC). Logistic regression and mixed-model ANOVA were performed.
For readers with and without feedback, the learning curve exhibited an initial rapid improvement that slowed after 40 examinations (change in AIC > 0.2%). Accuracy improved from 58.1% (batch 1) to 71.0-75.3% (batches 2-4) without feedback and from 58.1% to 72.0-77.4% with feedback (p = 0.027-0.046), without a difference in the extent of improvement (p = 0.800). Specificity improved from 53.7% to 68.5-81.5% without feedback and from 55.6% to 74.1-81.5% with feedback (p = 0.006-0.010), without a difference in the extent of improvement (p = 0.891). Sensitivity improved from 59.0-61.5% (batches 1-2) to 71.8-76.9% (batches 3-4) with feedback (p = 0.052), though did not improve without feedback (p = 0.602). Sensitivity for transition zone tumors exhibited larger changes (p = 0.024) with feedback than without feedback. Sensitivity for peripheral zone tumors did not improve in either group (p > 0.3). Reader confidence increased only with feedback (p < 0.001).
The learning curve in prostate tumor detection largely reflected self-directed learning. Continual feedback had a lesser effect. Clinical prostate MRI interpretation by novice radiologists warrants caution.
本研究旨在评估自主学习及持续反馈在前列腺MRI新手阅片者肿瘤检测学习曲线中的作用。
共纳入124例前列腺MRI检查,根据可检测肿瘤结果分为阳性(n = 52;单个前列腺影像报告和数据系统[PI-RADS] 3类或更高类别病变,在MRI靶向活检中显示Gleason评分≥7的肿瘤)或阴性(n = 72;PI-RADS 2类或更低类别且活检阴性)。这些检查被分成四个大小相等的批次,每个批次中阳性和阴性检查数量匹配。6名放射科二年级住院医师对检查进行阅片以定位肿瘤。6名阅片者中有3名在每次检查后收到显示前一个病例解决方案的反馈。通过赤池信息准则(AIC)评估随时间变化的准确率的学习曲线。进行了逻辑回归和混合模型方差分析。
对于有反馈和无反馈的阅片者,学习曲线最初迅速改善,在40次检查后放缓(AIC变化>0.2%)。无反馈时,准确率从58.1%(第1批次)提高到71.0 - 75.3%(第2 - 4批次),有反馈时从58.1%提高到72.0 - 77.4%(p = 0.027 - 0.046),改善程度无差异(p = 0.800)。无反馈时,特异性从53.7%提高到68.5 - 81.5%,有反馈时从55.6%提高到74.1 - 81.5%(p = 0.006 - 0.010),改善程度无差异(p = 0.891)。有反馈时,敏感度从59.0 - 61.5%(第1 - 2批次)提高到71.8 - 76.9%(第3 - 4批次)(p = 0.052),无反馈时未改善(p = 0.602)。与无反馈相比,有反馈时移行区肿瘤的敏感度变化更大(p = 0.024)。两组中外周区肿瘤的敏感度均未改善(p>0.3)。仅有反馈能提高阅片者的信心(p<0.001)。
前列腺肿瘤检测中的学习曲线在很大程度上反映了自主学习。持续反馈的作用较小。新手放射科医生对临床前列腺MRI的解读需谨慎。