Department of Radiology, Vestre Viken Hospital Trust, PO Box 800, 3004 Drammen, Norway.
Section for Breast Cancer Screening, Cancer Registry of Norway, The Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Eur J Radiol. 2024 Oct;179:111662. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2024.111662. Epub 2024 Aug 13.
To explore the association between radiologists' interpretation scores, early performance measures and cumulative reading volume in mammographic screening.
We analyzed 1,689,731 screening examinations (3,379,462 breasts) from BreastScreen Norway 2012-2020, all breasts scored 1-5 by two independent radiologists. Score 1 was considered negative/benign and score ≥2 positive in this scoring system. We performed descriptive analyses of recall, screen-detected cancer, positive predictive value (PPV) 1, mammographic features and histopathological characteristics by breast-based interpretation scores, and cumulative reading volume by examination-based interpretation scores.
Counting breasts and not women, 3.9 % (132,570/3,379,462) had a score of ≥2 by one or both radiologists. Of these, 84.8 % (112,440/132,570) were given a maximum score 2. Total recall rate was 1.6 % (53,735/3,379,462), 69.3 % (37,220/53,735) given maximum score 2. Among the 0.3 % (9733/3,379,462) diagnosed with screen-detected cancer, 34.6 % (3369/9733) had maximum score 3. The percentages of recall, screen-detected cancer and PPV-1 increased by increasing the sum of scores assigned by two radiologists (p < 0.001 for trend). Higher proportions of masses were observed among recalls and screen-detected cancers with low scores, and higher proportions of spiculated masses were observed for high scores (p < 0.001). Proportions of invasive carcinoma, histological grade 3 and lymph node positive tumors were higher for high versus low scores (p < 0.001). The proportion of examinations scored 1 increased by cumulative reading volume.
We observed higher rates of recall and screen-detected cancer and less favorable histopathological tumor characteristics for high versus low interpretation scores. However, a considerable number of recalls and screen-detected cancers had low interpretation scores.
探讨放射科医生的解读评分、早期绩效指标与累积阅读量在乳腺筛查中的相关性。
我们分析了 2012 年至 2020 年期间挪威乳腺筛查项目中的 1689731 次筛查检查(3379462 个乳房),所有乳房均由两位独立放射科医生进行 1-5 分的评分。该评分系统中,评分 1 表示阴性/良性,评分≥2 表示阳性。我们基于乳腺的解读评分,对召回、筛检发现的癌症、阳性预测值(PPV)1、乳腺特征和组织病理学特征进行了描述性分析,基于检查的解读评分对累积阅读量进行了分析。
按乳房而非妇女计数,有 3.9%(132570/3379462)的乳房由一位或两位放射科医生评分≥2。其中,84.8%(112440/132570)的乳房获得了最高分 2 分。总召回率为 1.6%(53735/3379462),其中 69.3%(37220/53735)获得了最高分 2 分。在 0.3%(9733/3379462)被诊断为筛检发现的癌症中,34.6%(3369/9733)的癌症获得了最高分 3 分。随着两位放射科医生评分之和的增加,召回率、筛检发现的癌症和 PPV-1 的比例也随之增加(趋势 p<0.001)。低评分的召回和筛检发现的癌症中,肿块的比例较高,而高分的则更多地表现为分叶状肿块(p<0.001)。高分的浸润性癌、组织学 3 级和淋巴结阳性肿瘤的比例高于低评分(p<0.001)。随着累积阅读量的增加,评分 1 的检查比例增加。
与低解读评分相比,我们观察到高解读评分与更高的召回率和筛检发现的癌症率以及较差的组织病理学肿瘤特征相关。然而,相当数量的召回和筛检发现的癌症具有较低的解读评分。