Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 12, 2025
Detection of Architectural Distortion in Prior Mammograms via Analysis of Oriented Patterns
Published on: August 30, 2013
Optimizing the Pairs of Radiologists That Double Read Screening Mammograms
Jessie J J Gommers1, Craig K Abbey1, Fredrik Strand1
1From the Department of Medical Imaging (J.J.J.G., I.S.) and Department for Health Evidence (M.J.M.B.), Radboud University Medical Center, Geert Grooteplein 10, 6525 GA, Post 766, Nijmegen, the Netherlands; Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of California-Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, Calif (C.K.A.); Department of Oncology-Pathology, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden (F.S.); Department of Breast Radiology, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden (F.S.); Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom (S.T.P., D.J.J.); Section for Breast Cancer Screening, Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway (M.L., S.H.); Department of Health and Care Sciences, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway (S.H.); Dutch Expert Center for Screening (LRCB), Nijmegen, the Netherlands (I.S., M.J.M.B.); and Technical Medicine Center, University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands (I.S.).
Abstract:
Background Despite variation in performance characteristics among radiologists, the pairing of radiologists for the double reading of screening mammograms is performed randomly. It is unknown how to optimize pairing to improve screening performance. Purpose To investigate whether radiologist performance characteristics can be used to determine the optimal set of pairs of radiologists to double read screening mammograms for improved accuracy. Materials and Methods This retrospective study was performed with reading outcomes from breast cancer screening programs in Sweden (2008-2015), England (2012-2014), and Norway (2004-2018). Cancer detection rates (CDRs) and abnormal interpretation rates (AIRs) were calculated, with AIR defined as either reader flagging an examination as abnormal. Individual readers were divided into performance categories based on their high and low CDR and AIR. The performance of individuals determined the classification of pairs. Random pair performance, for which any type of pair was equally represented, was compared with the performance of specific pairing strategies, which consisted of pairs of readers who were either opposite or similar in AIR and/or CDR. Results Based on a minimum number of examinations per reader and per pair, the final study sample consisted of 3 592 414 examinations (Sweden, n = 965 263; England, n = 837 048; Norway, n = 1 790 103). The overall AIRs and CDRs for all specific pairing strategies (Sweden AIR range, 45.5-56.9 per 1000 examinations and CDR range, 3.1-3.6 per 1000; England AIR range, 68.2-70.5 per 1000 and CDR range, 8.9-9.4 per 1000; Norway AIR range, 81.6-88.1 per 1000 and CDR range, 6.1-6.8 per 1000) were not significantly different from the random pairing strategy (Sweden AIR, 54.1 per 1000 examinations and CDR, 3.3 per 1000; England AIR, 69.3 per 1000 and CDR, 9.1 per 1000; Norway AIR, 84.1 per 1000 and CDR, 6.3 per 1000). Conclusion Pairing a set of readers based on different pairing strategies did not show a significant difference in screening performance when compared with random pairing. © RSNA, 2023.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
01:30Radiological Investigation I: X-ray and CT
01:30Radiological Investigation II: MRI and Ventilation Perfusion Scan
Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and Ventilation Perfusion Scans are two radiological investigations that offer detailed diagnostic images of the body, particularly lung structures.
MRI
MRI uses magnetic fields and radiofrequency signals to distinguish between normal and abnormal tissues. This technology provides a more detailed diagnostic image than CT scans, enabling it to characterize pulmonary nodules, stage bronchogenic carcinoma, and evaluate inflammatory activity in...