We developed a probabilistic model to support the classification decisions made by radiologists in mammography practice. Using the feature observations and Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) classifications from radiologists examining diagnostic and screening mammograms, we modeled their decisions to understand their judgments. Our model could help improve the decisions made by radiologists using their own feature observations and classifications while maintaining their observed sensitivities. Based on 112,433 mammographic cases from 36,111 patients and 13 radiologists at 2 separate institutions with a 1.1% prevalence of malignancy, we trained a probabilistic Bayesian network (BN) to estimate the malignancy probabilities of lesions. For each radiologist, we learned an observed probabilistic threshold within the model. We compared the sensitivity and specificity of each radiologist against the BN model using either their observed threshold or the standard 2% threshold recommended by BI-RADS. We found significant variability among the radiologists' observed thresholds. By applying the observed thresholds, the BN model showed a 0.01% (1 case) increase in false negatives and a 28.9% (3612 cases) reduction in false positives. When using the standard 2% BI-RADS-recommended threshold, there was a 26.7% (47 cases) increase in false negatives and a 47.3% (5911 cases) reduction in false positives. Our results show that we can significantly reduce screening mammography false positives with a minimal increase in false negatives. We find that learning radiologists' observed thresholds provides valuable information regarding the conservativeness of clinical practice and allows us to quantify the variability in sensitivity across and within institutions. Our model could provide support to radiologists to improve their performance and consistency within mammography practice.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6529223PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0272989X19832914DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

mammography practice
12
observed thresholds
12
increase false
12
false negatives
12
false positives
12
probabilistic model
8
model support
8
classification decisions
8
decisions radiologists
8
feature observations
8

Similar Publications

Background: Improvements in breast cancer therapy since the randomized controlled trials of mammography screening might have reduced the screening benefit. Most observational studies of mammography effectiveness would be confounded by these improvements and other factors. Using a design resistant to this confounding, we evaluated whether mammography in asymptomatic women reduces breast cancer mortality during the treatment era succeeding the trials.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Breast imaging readers' performance in the PERFORMS test-set based assessment scheme within the MyPeBS international randomised study.

Eur J Radiol

January 2025

Translational Medical Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, City Hospital Campus, Hucknall Road, Nottingham NG5 1PB, United Kingdom.

Purpose: A survey conducted by the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI) in 2023 revealed significant variations in Quality Assurance (QA) practices across Europe. The UK encourages regular performance monitoring for screen readers. This study aimed to assess the variability in diagnostic performance among readers participating in a wider prospective randomised trial across multiple countries.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Breast Suspicious Microcalcifications on Contrast-Enhanced Mammograms: Practice and Reflection.

Int J Gen Med

January 2025

Department of Radiology, Huangpu Branch, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, 200011, People's Republic of China.

Purpose: To evaluate the use of contrast enhanced mammography (CEM) in suspicious microcalcifications and to discuss strategies to cope with its diagnostic limitations.

Methods: We retrospectively evaluated patients with suspicious calcifications who underwent CEM at our institution. We collected and analyzed morphological findings, enhancement patterns and pathological findings of suspicious microcalcifications on CEM.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Background: Population-level mammography screening for early detection of breast cancer is a secondary prevention measure well-embedded in developed countries, and the implications for women's health are widely researched. From a public health perspective, efforts have focused on why mammography screening rates remain below the 70% screening rate required for effective population-level screening. From a sociological perspective, debates centre on whether 'informed choice' regarding screening exists for all women and the overemphasis on screening benefits, at the cost of not highlighting the potential harms.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

In 2023, a breast cancer risk assessment and a subsequent positive test for the BRCA-2 genetic mutation brought me to the uncomfortable intersection of a longstanding career as an advocate for high-quality medical evidence to support shared patient-provider decision making and a new role as a high-risk patient. My search for studies of available risk-management options revealed that the most commonly recommended approach for women with a ⩾20% lifetime breast cancer risk, intensive screening including annual mammography and/or magnetic resonance imaging beginning at age 25-40 years, was supported only by cancer-detection statistics, with almost no evidence on patient-centered outcomes-mortality, physical and psychological morbidity, or quality of life-compared with standard screening or a surgical alternative, bilateral risk-reducing mastectomy. In this commentary, I explore parallels between the use of the intensive screening protocol and another longstanding women's health recommendation based on limited evidence, the use of hormone therapy (HT) for postmenopausal chronic disease prevention, which was sharply curtailed after the publication of the groundbreaking Women's Health Initiative trial in 2002.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!