Early detection of breast cancers affects the 5-year recurrence rates and treatment options for diagnosed patients, and consequently, many countries have instituted nationwide screening programs. This study compared the performance of expert radiologists from Australia and the United States in detection of breast cancer. Forty-one radiologists, 21 from Australia and 20 from the United States, reviewed 30 mammographic cases containing two-view mammograms. Twenty cases had abnormal findings and 10 cases had normal findings. Radiologists were asked to locate malignancies and assign a level of confidence. A jackknife free-response receiver operating characteristic, figure of merit (JAFROC, FOM), inferred receiver operating characteristic, area under curve (ROC, AUC), specificity, sensitivity, and location sensitivity were calculated using Ziltron software and JAFROC v4.1. A Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the performance of Australian and U.S. radiologists. The results showed that when experience and the number of mammograms read per year were taken into account, the Australian radiologists sampled showed significantly higher sensitivity and location sensitivity ([Formula: see text]). JAFROC (FOM) and inferred ROC (AUC) analysis showed no difference between the overall performance of the two countries. ROC (AUC) and location sensitivity were higher for the Australian radiologists who read the most cases per year.

Introduction The detection of breast cancer is somewhat limited by human factors, and thus there is a need to improve reader performance. This study assesses whether radiologists who regularly undertake the education in the form of the Breast Reader Assessment Strategy (BREAST) demonstrate any changes in mammography interpretation performance over time. Methods In 2011, 2012 and 2013, 14 radiologists independently assessed a year‐specific BREAST mammographic test‐set. Radiologists read a different single test‐set once each year, with each comprising 60 digital mammogram cases. Radiologists marked the location of suspected lesions without computer‐aided diagnosis (CAD) and assigned a confidence rating of 2 for benign and 3–5 for malignant lesions. The mean sensitivity, specificity, location sensitivity, JAFROC FOM and ROC AUC were calculated. A Kruskal–Wallis test was used to compare the readings for the 14 radiologists across the 3 years. Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to assess comparison between pairs of years. Relationships between changes in performance and radiologist characteristics were examined using a Spearman's test. Results Significant increases were noted in mean sensitivity (P = 0.01), specificity (P = 0.01), location sensitivity (P = 0.001) and JAFROC FOM (P = 0.001) between 2011 and 2012. Between 2012 and 2013, significant improvements were noted in mean sensitivity (P = 0.003), specificity (P = 0.002), location sensitivity (P = 0.02), JAFROC FOM (P = 0.005) and ROC AUC (P = 0.008). No statistically significant correlations were shown between the levels of improvement and radiologists' characteristics. Conclusion Radiologists' who undertake the BREAST programme demonstrate significant improvements in test‐set performance during a 3‐year period, highlighting the value of ongoing education through the use of test‐set.

No abstract

No abstract