Mammographic interpretation in Vietnam: Tailored educational strategies are needed to increase clinicians' expertise.
breast cancer
diagnosis
experience
health equity
radiology
Journal
Asia-Pacific journal of clinical oncology
ISSN: 1743-7563
Titre abrégé: Asia Pac J Clin Oncol
Pays: Australia
ID NLM: 101241430
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2021
Oct 2021
Historique:
received:
14
03
2020
accepted:
10
07
2020
pubmed:
11
9
2020
medline:
27
11
2021
entrez:
10
9
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Breast cancer incidence is rapidly increasing throughout South East Asia, highlighting the need for high-quality early diagnosis and treatment. This study aims to investigate the efficacy of mammography detection in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City (HCMC), Vietnam, using data from Australian radiologists as a benchmark; factors that influence performance will be highlighted. A total of 53, 35 and 52 clinicians from Australia, HCMC and Hanoi, respectively, examined and diagnosed a test set of 60 mammograms, 20 of which contained cancers. Each clinician completed an accompanying questionnaire establishing demographic and experiential characteristics. The performance metrics of specificity, sensitivity, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), location sensitivity and Jackknife free-response ROC (JAFROC) figure of merit were used to evaluate clinicians performance. Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis statistical methods were employed to establish significance. Vietnamese radiologists demonstrated significantly lower sensitivity, AUC, lesion sensitivity and JAFROC scores compared to Australian radiologists. There was no difference in performance between clinicians from Hanoi and HCMC. However, certain performance features (older and more experienced clinicians compared with their younger, less experienced counterparts, readers who read more compared with fewer mammograms per week, clinicians with greater radiological experience and clinicians that completed a fellowship) demonstrated significantly better performances. The significant difference in diagnostic efficacy of mammograms between Vietnam and Australia identifies the need for improvements in breast radiology training, management and practice. Cost-effective solutions are available that can improve the reading efficacy of clinicians, and consequently health outcomes for Vietnamese women.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e212-e216Subventions
Organisme : National Breast Cancer Foundation
ID : IF-12-02
Organisme : Australian Department of Health
ID : 2018-2021
Organisme : Cancer Institute NSW
ID : 2018-2021
Organisme : Sydney Southeast Asia Centre
ID : 2016-2019
Informations de copyright
© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.
Références
Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68:394-424.
Ferlay J, Shin HR, Bray F, et al. Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: GLOBOCAN 2008. Int J Cancer. 2008;15:2893-2917.
Dieu B, Duc NB, Thuan TV. Cancer challenges and national cancer control programs to 2020. Viet Nam J On. 2012;4:13-18.
Trieu PD, Mello-Thoms C, Brennan PC. Female breast cancer in Vietnam: a comparison across Asian specific regions. Cancer Biol Med. 2015;12:238-245.
Jenkins C, Luu NM, Tran TA, et al. Breast cancer services in Vietnam: a scoping view. Global Health Action. 2018;11:1-11.
Lee W, Peters G. Mammographic screening for breast cancer: a review. J Med Radiat Sci. 2013;60:35-39.
Mello-Thoms C, Trieu P, Rawashdeh M. Understanding the role of correct lesion assessment in radiologists’ reporting of breast cancer. In: Fujita H, Hara T, Muramatsu C, eds. Breast Imaging. International Workshop on Digital Mammography. Gifu, Japan: Lecture Notes in Computer Science; 2014:341-347.
Jackson R, Double C, Munro H, et al. Breast cancer diagnostic efficacy in a developing south-east Asian country. Asian Pacific J Cancer Prev. 2019;20:727-731.
Brennan P, Warwick L, Tapia K. Breast Screen Reader Assessment Strategy (BREAST): a research infrastructure with a translational objective. In: Samei E, Krupinski E, eds. The Handbook of Medical Image Perception and Techniques. 2nd ed. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press; 2019:343-356.
Molins E, Macia F, Ferrer F, et al. Association between radiologists' experience and accuracy in interpreting screening mammograms. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008;8:91.
Rawashdeh M, Lee W, Bourne R, et al. Markers of good performance in mammography depend on number of annual readings. Radiology. 2013;269:61-67.
Ang ZZY, Rawashdeh MA, Heard R, et al. 2017. Classification of normal screening mammograms is strongly influenced by perceived mammographic breast density. J Med Imag Radiat On. 2017;61:461-469.
Rawashdeh M, Lee W, Pietrzyk M. The impact of using a JAFROC or ROC approach on the conclusions of a typical observer performance study. In: Abbey CK, Mello Thoms C, eds. Medical Imaging 2013: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment. Lake Buena Vista, FL: SPIE; 2013:86730B.
Al Mousa DS, Ryan EA, Mello-Thoms C, et al. What effect does mammographic breast density have on lesion detection in digital mammography. Clin Radiol. 2014;69:333-341.
Sickles E, Wolverton D, Dee K. Performance parameters for screening and diagnostic mammography: specialist and general radiologists. Radiolog Soc Nth Am. 2002;224:861-869.
Reed WM, Lee WB, Cawson JN, et al. Malignancy detection in digital mammograms: important reader characteristics and required case numbers. Acad Radiol. 2010;17:1409-1413.
Donovan A. Views of radiology program directors on the role of mentorship in the training of radiology residents. Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194:704-708.
Sulieman WI, Rawashdeh MA, Lewis SJ, et al. Impact of Breast Reader Assessment Strategy on mammographic radiologists' test reading performance. J Med Imag Radiat On. 2016;60:352-358.
Trieu PDY, Tapia K, Frazer H, et al. Improvement of cancer detection on mammograms via BREAST Test Sets. Acad Radiol. 2019;26:PE341-PE347.