Reader characteristics and mammogram features associated with breast imaging reporting scores.

Abstract

This study aims to explore the reading performances of radiologists in detecting cancers on mammograms using Tabar Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BIRADS) classification and identify factors related to breast imaging reporting scores. 117 readings of five different mammogram test sets with each set containing 20 cancer and 40 normal cases were performed by Australian radiologists. Each radiologist evaluated the mammograms using the BIRADS lexicon with category 1 - negative, category 2 - benign findings, category 3 - equivocal findings (Recall), category 4 - suspicious findings (Recall), and category 5 - highly suggestive of malignant findings (Recall). Performance metrics (true positive, false positive, true negative, and false negative) were calculated for each radiologist and the distribution of reporting categories was analyzed in reader-based and case-based groups. The association of reader characteristics and case features among categories was examined using Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests. 38% of cancer-containing mammograms were reported with category 3 which decreased to 32.3% with category 4 and 16.2% with category 5 while 16.6 and 10.3% of cancer cases were marked with categories 1 and 2. Female readers had less false-negative rates when using categories 1 and 2 for cancer cases than male readers (p < 0.01). A similar pattern as gender category was also found in Breast Screen readers and readers completed breast reading fellowships compared with non-Breast Screen and non-fellowship readers (p < 0.05). Radiologists with low number of cases read per week were more likely to record the cancer cases with category 4 while the ones with high number of cases were with category 3 (p < 0.01). Discrete mass and asymmetric density were the two types of abnormalities reported mostly as equivocal findings with category 3 (47-50%; p = 0.005) while spiculated mass or stellate lesions were mostly selected as highly suggestive of malignancy with category 5 (26%, p = 0.001). Most radiologists used category 3 when reporting cancer mammograms. Gender, working for BreastScreen, fellowship completion, and number of cases read per week were factors associated with scoring selection. Radiologists reported higher Tabar BIRADS category for specific types of abnormalities on mammograms than others. The study identified factors associated with the decision of radiologists in assigning a BIRADS Tabar score for mammograms with abnormality. These findings will be useful for individual training programs to improve the confidence of radiologists in recognizing abnormal lesions on screening mammograms.