Translator Disclaimer
24 March 2016 The classification of normal screening mammograms
Author Affiliations +
Rationale and objectives: To understand how breast screen readers classify the difficulty of normal screening mammograms using common lexicon describing normal appearances. Cases were also assessed on their suitability for a single reader strategy.

Materials and Methods: 15 breast readers were asked to interpret a test set of 29 normal screening mammogram cases and classify them by rating the difficulty of the case on a five-point Likert scale, identifying the salient features and assessing their suitability for single reading. Using the False Positive Fractions from a previous study, the 29 cases were classified into 10 "low", 10 "medium" and nine "high" difficulties. Data was analyzed with descriptive statistics. Spearman's correlation was used to test the strength of association between the difficulty of the cases and the readers’ recommendation for single reading strategy.

Results: The ratings from readers in this study corresponded to the known difficulty level of cases for the 'low' and 'high' difficulty cases. Uniform ductal pattern and density, symmetrical mammographic features and the absence of micro-calcifications were the main reasons associated with 'low' difficulty cases. The 'high' difficulty cases were described as having ‘dense breasts’. There was a statistically significant negative correlation between the difficulty of the cases and readers’ recommendation for single reading (r = -0.475, P = 0.009).

Conclusion: The findings demonstrated potential relationships between certain mammographic features and the difficulty for readers to classify mammograms as 'normal'. The standard Australian practice of double reading was deemed more suitable for most cases. There was an inverse moderate association between the difficulty of the cases and the recommendations for single reading.
© (2016) COPYRIGHT Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE). Downloading of the abstract is permitted for personal use only.
Zoey Z. Y. Ang, Mohammad A. Rawashdeh, Robert Heard, Patrick C. Brennan, Warwick Lee, and Sarah J. Lewis "The classification of normal screening mammograms", Proc. SPIE 9787, Medical Imaging 2016: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment, 97870I (24 March 2016);

Back to Top