Objectives: To assess whether NHS breast screening programme (NHSBSP) mammogram readers could effectively interpret first post-contrast acquisition subtracted (FAST) MRI, for intended use in screening for breast cancer. Methods: Eight NHSBSP mammogram readers from a single centre (four who also read breast MRI (Group 1) and four who do not (Group 2)) were given structured FAST MRI reader training (median 4 h: 32 min). They then prospectively interpreted 125 FAST MRIs (250 breasts: 194 normal and 56 cancer) comprising a consecutive series of screening MRIs enriched with additional cancer cases from 2015, providing 2000 interpretations. Readers were blinded to other readers’ opinions and to clinical information. Categorisation followed the NHSBSP MRI reporting categorisation, with categories 4 and 5 considered indicative of cancer. Diagnostic accuracy (reference standard: histology or 2 years’ follow-up) and agreement between readers were determined. Results: The accuracy achieved by Group 2 (847/1000 (85%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 82–87%)) was 5% less than that of Group 1 (898/1000 (90%; 95% CI 88–92)). Good inter-reader agreement was seen between both Group 1 readers (κ = 0.66; 95% CI 0.61–0.71) and Group 2 readers (κ = 0.63; 95% CI 0.58–0.68). The median time taken to interpret each FAST MRI was Group 1: 34 s (range 3–351) and Group 2: 77 s (range 11–321). Conclusion: Brief structured training enabled multiprofessional mammogram readers to achieve similar accuracy at FAST MRI interpretation to consultant radiologists experienced at breast MRI interpretation. Advances in knowledge: FAST MRI could be feasible from a training-the-workforce perspective for screening within NHSBSP.

How to cite:Please refer to published version for the most recent bibliographic citation information. If a published version is known of, the repository item page linked to above, will contain details on accessing it.

Background Abbreviated breast MRI (abMRI) is being introduced in breast screening trials and clinical practice, particularly for women with dense breasts. Upscaling abMRI provision requires the workforce of mammogram readers to learn to effectively interpret abMRI. The purpose of this study was to examine the diagnostic accuracy of mammogram readers to interpret abMRI after a single day of standardised small-group training and to compare diagnostic performance of mammogram readers experienced in full-protocol breast MRI (fpMRI) interpretation (Group 1) with that of those without fpMRI interpretation experience (Group 2). Methods Mammogram readers were recruited from six NHS Breast Screening Programme sites. Small-group hands-on workstation training was provided, with subsequent prospective, independent, blinded interpretation of an enriched dataset with known outcome. A simplified form of abMRI (first post-contrast subtracted images (FAST MRI), displayed as maximum-intensity projection (MIP) and subtracted slice stack) was used. Per-breast and per-lesion diagnostic accuracy analysis was undertaken, with comparison across groups, and double-reading simulation of a consecutive screening subset. Results 37 readers (Group 1: 17, Group 2: 20) completed the reading task of 125 scans (250 breasts) (total = 9250 reads). Overall sensitivity was 86% (95% confidence interval (CI) 84–87%; 1776/2072) and specificity 86% (95%CI 85–86%; 6140/7178). Group 1 showed significantly higher sensitivity (843/952; 89%; 95%CI 86–91%) and higher specificity (2957/3298; 90%; 95%CI 89–91%) than Group 2 (sensitivity = 83%; 95%CI 81–85% (933/1120) p < 0.0001; specificity = 82%; 95%CI 81–83% (3183/3880) p < 0.0001). Inter-reader agreement was higher for Group 1 (kappa = 0.73; 95%CI 0.68–0.79) than for Group 2 (kappa = 0.51; 95%CI 0.45–0.56). Specificity improved for Group 2, from the first 55 cases (81%) to the remaining 70 (83%) (p = 0.02) but not for Group 1 (90–89% p = 0.44), whereas sensitivity remained consistent for both Group 1 (88–89%) and Group 2 (83–84%). Conclusions Single-day abMRI interpretation training for mammogram readers achieved an overall diagnostic performance within benchmarks published for fpMRI but was insufficient for diagnostic accuracy of mammogram readers new to breast MRI to match that of experienced fpMRI readers. Novice MRI reader performance improved during the reading task, suggesting that additional training could further narrow this performance gap.

Aim FAST MRI is an abbreviated breast MRI technique, proposed as a screening tool for breast cancer. This study aims to explore how ‘Think-Out-Loud’ (TOL) methodology can effectively develop and shape training to interpret standard breast MRI on readers’ learning experience. Materials and methods TOL methodology asks people to speak their thoughts while performing a task; to say whatever they are looking at, thinking, doing, and feeling at each moment. It helps determine expectations and identify aspects of confusion. This methodology was adopted with two groups of image readers to develop training materials for FAST MRI interpretation. Eight image readers (readers); 4 NHS Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) breast MRI and mammogram readers (Group 1) and 4 NHSBSP mammogram readers who do not read breast MRI (Group 2) were audio and video recorded during training. Content analysis was undertaken. Results TOL was well received by the readers and allowed iterative development and refinement of a training package. Challenges relating to introducing new concepts and managing uncertainty were identified through the analysis of the TOL audio data. Additionally, Group 2 asked for more clarification than Group 1, of both the teaching materials and how to use the image-manipulation software. Conclusion TOL methodology allowed effective training of both groups of readers. The iterative nature of individual training ensured production of user-friendly materials including frequently-asked-questions sheets. It allowed for each person to feel that their views were fully listened to and incorporated into the training package, allowing for training materials with high face validity.

Patient-completed questionnaires can be used to obtain a more accurate history than junior doctors for most patients admitted with acute abdominal pain.

No abstract

Background: Abbreviated breast MRI (abMRI) is being introduced in breast screening trials and clinical practice, particularly for women with dense breasts. Upscaling abMRI provision requires the workforce of mammogram-readers to learn to effectively interpret abMRI. The purpose of this study was to examine the diagnostic accuracy of mammogram-readers to interpret abMRI after a single day of standardised small-group training and to compare diagnostic performance of mammogram-readers experienced in full-protocol breast MRI (fpMRI) interpretation (Group 1) with that of those without fpMRI interpretation experience (Group 2).Methods: Mammogram-readers were recruited from six NHS Breast Screening Programme sites. Small-group hands-on workstation training was provided, with subsequent prospective, independent, blinded interpretation of an enriched dataset with known outcome. A simplified form of abMRI (first-post-contrast-subtracted-images (FAST MRI), displayed as maximum-intensity-projection (MIP) and subtracted slice-stack), was used. Per-breast and per-lesion diagnostic accuracy analysis was undertaken, with comparison across groups, and double-reading simulation of a consecutive screening subset.Results: 37 readers (Group 1: 17, Group 2: 20) completed the reading task of 125 scans (250 breasts) (total = 9250 reads). Overall sensitivity was 86% (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 84-87%; 1776/2072) and specificity, 86% (95%CI 85-86%; 6140/7178). Group 1 showed significantly higher sensitivity (843/952; 89%; 95%CI 86-91%) and higher specificity (2957/3298; 90%; 95%CI 89-91%) than Group 2 (sensitivity = 83%; 95%CI 81-85% (933/1120) p<0.0001; specificity = 82%; 95%CI 81-83% (3183/3880) p<0.0001). Inter-reader agreement was higher for Group 1 (kappa = 0.73; 95%CI 0.68-0.79) than for Group 2 (kappa = 0.51; 95%CI 0.45-0.56). Specificity improved for Group 2, from the first 55 cases (81%) to the remaining 70 (83%) (p=0.02) but not for Group 1 (90% to 89% p=0.44); whereas sensitivity remained consistent for both Group 1 (88% to 89%) and Group 2 (83% to 84%).Conclusions: Single day abMRI interpretation-training for mammogram-readers achieved an overall diagnostic performance within benchmarks published for fpMRI but was insufficient for diagnostic accuracy of mammogram-readers new to breast MRI to match that of experienced fpMRI readers. Novice MRI reader performance improved during the reading task, suggesting additional training could further narrow this performance gap.

Despite its unparalleled sensitivity for aggressive breast cancer, breast MRI continually excites criticism for a specificity that lags behind that of modern mammographic techniques. Radiologists reporting breast MRI need to recognise the range of benign appearances on breast MRI to avoid unnecessary biopsy. This review summarises the reported diagnostic accuracy of breast MRI with particular attention to the technique’s specificity, provides a referenced reporting strategy and discusses factors that compromise diagnostic confidence. We then present a pictorial review of benign findings on breast MRI. Enhancing radiological skills to discriminate malignant from benign findings will minimise false positive biopsies, enabling optimal use of multiparametric breast MRI for the benefit of screening clients and breast cancer patients.