DefinePK

Abstract

Objective: To analyze inter-observer variations in reporting mammograms and utilize the evaluation results to improve radiologists' performance.
Objective: To analyze inter-observer variations in reporting mammograms and utilize the evaluation results to improve radiologists' performance.
Materials and Methods: This study retrospectively reviewed mammograms of 462 patients who underwent mammography in 2018 at Federal Breast Cancer Center, Islamabad. Initially interpreted by junior radiologists as part of routine reporting, these mammograms were later subjected to peer review evaluation by a panel of two expert senior radiologists in 2017. Agreement and disagreement over variously assigned BIRADS scores to these cases were recorded on a form. The final analysis focused mainly on significant disagreements related to detection and interpretation issues.
Results: The overall abnormal mammogram reporting rate was 48.3% among junior radiologists, while the expert panel was more likely to report mammograms as normal,   with   an   abnormal   mammogram   reporting   rate   of   30.3%.   Major disagreements between the two groups were observed for initially assigned BIRADS- 0, BIRADS-II, and BIRADS-IV cases. The study detected 8 more abnormal mammograms, which were malignant upon intervention, and similarly downgraded the initially reported 13 suspicious category mammograms with confirmed benign findings on biopsy or FNAC.
Conclusion: In comparison to the expert panel, junior radiologists are more likely to interpret films as non-normal. An expert panel can not only increase the rate of cancer detection on screening mammograms but also minimize false positive interventions.