Faculty Lead of Marketing, Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
J Am Coll Radiol. 2021 Feb;18(2):280-293. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2020.07.033. Epub 2020 Aug 28.
To compare batch reading and interrupted interpretation for modern screening mammography.
We retrospectively reviewed digital mammograms without and with tomosynthesis that were originally interpreted with batch reading or interrupted interpretation between January 2015 and June 2017. The following performance metrics were compared: recall rate (per 100 examinations), cancer detection rate (per 1,000 examinations), and positive predictive values for recall and biopsy.
In all, 9,832 digital mammograms were batch read, yielding a recall rate of 9.98%, cancer detection rate of 4.27, and positive predictive values for recall and biopsy of 4.40% and 35.5%, respectively. There were 49,496 digital mammograms that were read with interrupted interpretation, yielding a recall rate of 11.3%, cancer detection rate of 4.44, and positive predictive values for recall and biopsy of 3.92% and 30.1%, respectively. Of the digital mammograms with tomosynthesis, 7,075 were batch read, yielding a recall rate of 6.98%, cancer detection rate of 5.37, and positive predictive values for recall and biopsy of 7.69% and 38.0%, respectively. Of the digital mammograms with tomosynthesis, 24,380 were read with interrupted interpretation, yielding a recall rate of 8.30%, cancer detection rate of 5.41, and positive predictive values for recall and biopsy of 6.52% and 33.3%, respectively. For both digital mammograms without and with tomosynthesis, recall rates improved with batch reading compared with interrupted interpretation (P < .001), but no significant differences were seen for other metrics.
Batch reading digital mammograms without and with tomosynthesis improves recall rates while maintaining cancer detection rates and positive predictive values compared with interrupted interpretation.
比较批量阅读和间断式解读在现代筛查性乳房 X 线摄影中的应用。
我们回顾性分析了 2015 年 1 月至 2017 年 6 月期间，原始采用批量阅读或间断式解读的无断层合成和有断层合成的数字化乳房 X 线摄影的数字乳房 X 线片。比较了以下性能指标：召回率（每 100 例检查）、癌症检出率（每 1000 例检查）和召回及活检的阳性预测值。
共有 9832 例数字化乳房 X 线片采用批量阅读，召回率为 9.98%，癌症检出率为 4.27%，召回和活检的阳性预测值分别为 4.40%和 35.5%。49496 例数字化乳房 X 线片采用间断式解读，召回率为 11.3%，癌症检出率为 4.44%，召回和活检的阳性预测值分别为 3.92%和 30.1%。有断层合成的数字化乳房 X 线片中，7075 例采用批量阅读，召回率为 6.98%，癌症检出率为 5.37%，召回和活检的阳性预测值分别为 7.69%和 38.0%。有断层合成的数字化乳房 X 线片中，24380 例采用间断式解读，召回率为 8.30%，癌症检出率为 5.41%，召回和活检的阳性预测值分别为 6.52%和 33.3%。对于无断层合成和有断层合成的数字化乳房 X 线片，与间断式解读相比，批量阅读可提高召回率（P<0.001），但其他指标无显著差异。
与间断式解读相比，批量阅读无断层合成和有断层合成的数字化乳房 X 线片可提高召回率，同时保持癌症检出率和阳性预测值。
