Mammography self-evaluation online test for screening readers: an Italian Society of Medical Radiology (SIRM) initiative.

OBJECTIVES: To report and analyse the characteristics and performance of the first cohort of Italian radiologists completing the national mammography self-evaluation online test established by the Italian Society of Medical Radiology (SIRM). METHODS: A specifically-built dataset of 132 mammograms (24 with screen-detected cancers and 108 negative cases) was preliminarily tested on 48 radiologists to define pass thresholds (62% sensitivity and 86% specificity) and subsequently made available online to SIRM members during a 13-month timeframe between 2018 and 2019. Associations between participants' characteristics, pass rates, and diagnostic accuracy were then investigated with descriptive statistics and univariate and multivariable regression analyses. RESULTS: A total of 342 radiologists completed the test, 151/342 (44.2%) with success. All individual variables, except gender, showed a significant correlation with pass rates and diagnostic sensitivity, confirmed by univariate logistic regression, while only involvement in organised screening programs and number of mammograms read per year showed a positive association with specificity at univariate logistic regression. In the multivariable regression analysis, fewer variables remained significant: > 3000 mammograms read per year for success rate; female gender, public practice setting, and higher experience self-judgement for sensitivity; no variables were significantly associated with specificity. CONCLUSIONS: This national self-evaluation test effectively differentiated multiple aspects of mammographic reading experience, but specific breast imaging experience was shown not to strictly guarantee good diagnostic accuracy. Due to its easy use and the validity of obtained results, this test could be extended to all Italian breast radiologists, regardless of their experience, also as a Breast Unit accreditation criterion. KEY POINTS: • This self-evaluation test was found to be able to differentiate various degrees of mammographic interpretation experience. • Breast cancer screening readers should undergo a self-assessment test, since experience parameters alone do not guarantee diagnostic ability.

Accuracy of needle biopsy of breast lesions visible on ultrasound: audit of fine needle versus core needle biopsy in 3233 consecutive samplings with ascertained outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Core needle biopsy (CNB) has progressively replaced fine needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) in the diagnosis of breast lesions. Less information is available on how these tests perform for biopsy of ultrasound (US) visible breast lesions. This study examines the outcomes of CNB and FNAC in a large series ascertained with surgical histology or clinical-imaging follow-up. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective five-year audit of 3233 consecutive US-guided needle samplings of solid breast lesions, from self-referred symptomatic or asymptomatic subjects, performed by six radiologists in the same time-frame (2003-2006): 1950 FNAC and 1283 CNB. The probability of undergoing CNB as a first test instead of FNAC was evaluated using logistic regression. Accuracy and inadequacy were calculated for each of CNB and FNAC performed as first test. Accuracy measures included equivocal or borderline/atypical lesions as positive results. RESULTS: The probability of CNB as a first test instead of FNAC increased significantly over time, when there was a pre-test higher level of suspicion, in younger (relative to older) women, with increasing lesion size on imaging, and for palpable (relative to impalpable) lesions. Inadequacy rate was lower for CNB (B1 = 6.9%) than for FNAC (C1 = 17.7%), p < 0.001, and specifically in malignant lesions (B1 = 0.9% vs. C1 = 4.5%; p < 0.001). False negative rate was equally low for both CNB and FNAC (1.7% each test). CNB performed significantly better than FNAC for absolute sensitivity (93.1% vs. 74.4%; p < 0.001) and complete sensitivity (97.4% vs. 93.8%; p = 0.001), however specificity was lower for CNB than FNAC (88.3% vs. 96.4%; p < 0.001). Absolute diagnostic accuracy was higher for CNB than FNAC (84.5% vs. 71.9; p < 0.001) while FNAC performed better than CNB for complete diagnostic accuracy (95.4% vs. 93.2; p < 0.008). In the small subgroup assessed with CNB after an inconclusive initial FNAC (231 cases) there was improved complete sensitivity (from 93.8% to 97.0%) however this also increased costs. CONCLUSION: FNAC and CNB were generally performed in different patients, thus our study reported indirect comparisons of these tests. Although FNAC performed well (except for relatively high inadequacy), CNB had significantly better performance based on measures of sensitivity, but this was associated with lower specificity for CNB relative to FNAC. Overall, CNB is the more reliable biopsy method for sonographically-visible lesions; where FNAC is used as the first-line test, inadequate or inconclusive FNAC can be largely resolved by using repeat sampling with CNB.