Test-set training improves the detection rates of invasive cancer in screening mammography. Issue 3 (March 2023)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Qenam, B.A.; Li, T.; Ekpo, E.; Frazer, H.; Brennan, P.C.
• Is Part Of: Clinical radiology. Volume 78:Issue 3(2023)
• Page Start: e260
• Page End: e267
• Publication Date: 2023-03
• Subjects: Medical radiology -- Periodicals; Radiotherapy -- Periodicals; Radiotherapy -- Periodicals; Radiology -- Periodicals; Societies, Medical -- Periodicals; Medical radiology; Radiotherapy; Electronic journals; Periodicals; 616.0757
• DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2022.11.012
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0009-9260

Abstract

Abstract : Aim: To investigate if mammographic test-set participation affects routine breast cancer screening performance. Materials and methods: Clinical audit data between 2008 and 2018 were collected for 35 breast screen readers who participated in the BreastScreen Reader Assessment Strategy (BREAST) and 22 readers with no history of test-set participation. For BREAST readers, the annual audit data were divided according to the year they completed their first test set, and the same years were used randomly to align and divide the data of non-BREAST readers into pre- and post-test set periods. Multiple audit parameters were inspected retrospectively for the two cohorts to identify how their reading performance has evolved in screening mammography. Results: Investigating 2 calendar years before and after test-set participation, BREAST and non-BREAST readers recalled lower rates of women in the latter period ( p= 0.03 and p= 0.02, respectively). They also improved their positive predictive value (PPV; p= 0.01 and p= 0.02, respectively). BREAST readers additionally improved their detection rates of invasive cancer ( p= 0.02) and all cancers ( p= 0.01). In an extended 3-year comparison, similar improvements occurred in the recall rate for BREAST ( p= 0.02) and non-BREAST readers ( p= 0.02) and in PPV ( p= 0.001, 0.01, respectively); however, improvements in detection rates also occurred exclusively in BREAST readers' performance for invasive cancer ( p= 0.04), DCIS ( p= 0.05), and all cancers ( p= 0.02); however, significant improvements in detection did not involve <15 mm invasive cancers in both periods. Meanwhile, non-BREAST readers demonstrated a decrease in sensitivity ( p= 0.02). Conclusion: Participation in test sets is linked to over-time improvements in most audit-measured cancer detection rates.