Does routine breast screening practice over-ride display quality in reporting enriched test sets?

Abstract

The performance of a group of 16 American (US) breast screening radiologists in interpreting a number of cases from a recent PERFORMS self-assessment case set which had been carefully selected to exclude small calcifications, using sub-mammographic resolution displays, as compared to a British (UK) group of radiologists using mammographic displays has previously been reported. It was found that the UK group performed better, detecting more cancers with the US participants correctly recalling less. These results were interpreted as due to differences in the displays employed by each group as well as to routine screening differences between the two countries. This current study extended that work with 11 of these experienced US breast screening radiologists further interpreting 20 new PERFORMS mammographic cases using a suitable mammographic clinical workstation. The PERFORMS cases were selected so as to show a range of normal, benign and abnormal appearances. Data from these radiologists were compared to their earlier performance on different PERFORMS cases and sub-clinical displays. Their data were also compared to recent data of 11 UK radiologists reading the same cases, again on clinical workstations as well as to all UK screeners. Despite using equivalent clinical monitors, data indicate differences between the UK and US groups in recall decisions which is not just a function of the countries' screening approaches. Lower detection of abnormal cases by the US group was found here and reasons for this are explored.