Take a break: should breaks be enforced during digital breast tomosynthesis reading sessions?
Blinking
Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT)
Eye tracking technology
Fatigue
Mammography
Journal
European radiology
ISSN: 1432-1084
Titre abrégé: Eur Radiol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9114774
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
17 Aug 2023
17 Aug 2023
Historique:
received:
28
02
2023
accepted:
26
06
2023
revised:
24
04
2023
medline:
17
8
2023
pubmed:
17
8
2023
entrez:
17
8
2023
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) can improve diagnostic accuracy compared to 2D mammography, but DBT reporting is time-consuming and potentially more fatiguing. Changes in diagnostic accuracy and subjective and objective fatigue were evaluated over a DBT reporting session, and the impact of taking a reporting break was assessed. Forty-five National Health Service (NHS) mammography readers from 6 hospitals read a cancer-enriched set of 40 DBT cases whilst eye tracked in this prospective cohort study, from December 2020 to April 2022. Eye-blink metrics were assessed as objective fatigue measures. Twenty-one readers had a reporting break, 24 did not. Subjective fatigue questionnaires were completed before and after the session. Diagnostic accuracy and subjective and objective fatigue measures were compared between the cohorts using parametric and non-parametric significance testing. Readers had on average 10 years post-training breast screening experience and took just under 2 h (105.8 min) to report all cases. Readers without a break reported greater levels of subjective fatigue (44% vs. 33%, p = 0.04), which related to greater objective fatigue: an increased average blink duration (296 ms vs. 286 ms, p < 0.001) and a reduced eye-opening velocity (76 mm/s vs. 82 mm/s, p < 0.001). Objective fatigue increased as the trial progressed for the no break cohort only (ps < 0.001). No difference was identified in diagnostic accuracy between the groups (accuracy: 87% vs. 87%, p = 0.92). Implementing a break during a 2-h DBT reporting session resulted in lower levels of subjective and objective fatigue. Breaks did not impact diagnostic accuracy, which may be related to the extensive experience of the readers. DBT is being incorporated into many mammography screening programmes. Recognising that reporting breaks are required when reading large volumes of DBT studies ensures this can be factored in when setting up reading sessions. Clinical trials registration number: NCT03733106 KEY POINTS: • Use of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in breast screening programmes can cause significant reader fatigue. • The effectiveness of incorporating reading breaks into DBT reporting sessions, to reduce mammography reader fatigue, was investigated using eye tracking. • Integrating breaks into DBT reporting sessions reduced reader fatigue; however, diagnostic accuracy was unaffected.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37589906
doi: 10.1007/s00330-023-10086-4
pii: 10.1007/s00330-023-10086-4
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT03733106']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Conant EF, Barlow WE, Herschorn SD, Weaver DL, Beaber EF (2019) Tosteson ANA, et al Association of digital breast tomosynthesis vs digital mammography with cancer detection and recall rates by age and breast density. JAMA Oncol 5:635. https://doi.org/10.1001/JAMAONCOL.2018.7078
Johnson K, Lång K, Ikeda DM, Åkesson A, Andersson I, Zackrisson S (2021) Interval breast cancer rates and tumor characteristics in the prospective population-based Malmö breast tomosynthesis screening trial. Radiology 299:559–567. https://doi.org/10.1148/RADIOL.2021204106
Heindel W, Weigel S, Gerß J et al (2022) Digital breast tomosynthesis plus synthesised mammography versus digital screening mammography for the detection of invasive breast cancer (TOSYMA): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, superiority trial. Lancet Oncol 23:601–611. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(22)00194-2
Durand MA, Friedewald SM, Plecha DM et al (2021) False-negative rates of breast cancer screening with and without digital breast tomosynthesis. Radiol 298:296–305. https://doi.org/10.1148/RADIOL.2020202858
Houssami N, Zackrisson S, Blazek K et al (2021) Meta-analysis of prospective studies evaluating breast cancer detection and interval cancer rates for digital breast tomosynthesis versus mammography population screening. Eur J Cancer 148:14–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EJCA.2021.01.035
Dang PA, Freer PE, Humphrey KL, Halpern EF, Rafferty EA (2014) Addition of tomosynthesis to conventional digital mammography: effect on image interpretation time of screening examinations. Radiology 270:49–56. https://doi.org/10.1148/RADIOL.13130765
Waite S, Kolla S, Jeudy J et al (2017) Tired in the reading room: the influence of fatigue in radiology. J Am Coll Radiol 14:191–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JACR.2016.10.009
Krupinski EA, Berbaum KS, Caldwell RT, Schartz KM, Madsen MT, Kramer DJ (2012) Do long radiology workdays impact nodule detection in dynamic CT interpretation? J Am Coll Radiol 9:191. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JACR.2011.11.013
doi: 10.1016/J.JACR.2011.11.013
pubmed: 22386166
pmcid: 3296477
Hanna TN, Zygmont ME, Peterson R et al (2018) The effects of fatigue from overnight shifts on radiology search patterns and diagnostic performance. J Am Coll Radiol 15:1709–1716. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JACR.2017.12.019
Chen Y, Sudin E, Partridge G et al (2023) Measuring reader fatigue in the interpretation of screening digital breast tomosynthesis. Br J Radiol 96:1143. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20220629
Partridge G, Phillips P, Darker I, Chen Y (2022) Investigating reading strategies and eye behaviours associated with high diagnostic performance when reading digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) images. Proc. SPIE 12035, Medical Imaging 2022: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment, 1203508; https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2611388
PERFORMS. iPERFORMS Web Site. n.d. https://iperforms.com/performs/ (accessed December 7, 2021).
Chen Y, Gale A (2018) Performance assessment using standardized data sets: the PERFORMS scheme in breast screening and other domains. In: Samei E, Krupinski EA, editors. The handbook of medical image perception and techniques, Cambridge University Press, p. 328–42. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108163781.022 .
Gale A, Chen Y (2020) A review of the PERFORMS scheme in breast screening. Br J Radiol;93. https://doi.org/10.1259/BJR.20190908 .
Yamada Y, Kobayashi M (2018) Detecting mental fatigue from eye-tracking data gathered while watching video: evaluation in younger and older adults. Artif Intell Med 91:39–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ARTMED.2018.06.005
doi: 10.1016/J.ARTMED.2018.06.005
pubmed: 30026049
Li J, Li H, Wang H, Umer W, Fu H, Xing X (2019) Evaluating the impact of mental fatigue on construction equipment operators’ ability to detect hazards using wearable eye-tracking technology. Autom Constr 105:102835. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AUTCON.2019.102835
doi: 10.1016/J.AUTCON.2019.102835
Schleicher R, Galley N, Briest S, Galley L (2008) Blinks and saccades as indicators of fatigue in sleepiness warnings: looking tired? Ergonomics 51:982–1010. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140130701817062
doi: 10.1080/00140130701817062
pubmed: 18568959
Martins R, Carvalho JM (2015) Eye blinking as an indicator of fatigue and mental load—a systematic review. Occupational Safety and Hygiene III - Selected Extended and Revised Contributions from the International Symposium on Safety and Hygiene:231–5. https://doi.org/10.1201/B18042-48 .
Maffei A, Angrilli A (2018) Spontaneous eye blink rate: an index of dopaminergic component of sustained attention and fatigue. Int J Psychophysiol 123:58–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJPSYCHO.2017.11.009
doi: 10.1016/J.IJPSYCHO.2017.11.009
pubmed: 29133149
Baccour MH, Driewer F, Kasneci E, Rosenstiel W (2019) Camera-based eye blink detection algorithm for assessing driver drowsiness. IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium, Proceedings 2019; 987–93. https://doi.org/10.1109/IVS.2019.8813871 .
Searjeant M, Phillips P, Roy D, Gale A, Chen Y (2021) Blink identification with eye tracking: a software processing program. Med Imaging 2021: Image Percep Observ Perform Technol Assess 11599:171–182. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2580967
doi: 10.1117/12.2580967
Chen Y, James JJ, Michalopoulou E, Darker IT, Jenkins J (2022) Performance of radiologists and radiographers in double reading mammograms: the UK National Health Service Breast Screening Program. Radiology https://doi.org/10.1148/RADIOL.212951
Cori JM, Anderson C, Shekari Soleimanloo S, Jackson ML, Howard ME (2019) Narrative review: do spontaneous eye blink parameters provide a useful assessment of state drowsiness? Sleep Med Rev 45:95–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SMRV.2019.03.004
doi: 10.1016/J.SMRV.2019.03.004
pubmed: 30986615
Bernstein MH, Baird GL, Lourenco AP (2022) Digital breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography recall and false-positive rates by time of day and reader experience. Radiology https://doi.org/10.1148/RADIOL.210318
Evans KK, Birdwell RL, Wolfe JM (2013) If you don’t find it often, you often don’t find it: why some cancers are missed in breast cancer screening. PLoS One 8:e64366. https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0064366
doi: 10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0064366
pubmed: 23737980
pmcid: 3667799
Gur D, Bandos AI, Cohen CS et al (2008) The “laboratory” effect: comparing radiologists’ performance and variability during prospective clinical and laboratory mammography interpretations. Radiology https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2491072025
Kaida K, Takahashi M, Åkerstedt T et al (2006) Validation of the Karolinska Sleepiness Scale against performance and EEG variables. Clin Neurophysiol 117:1574–1581. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CLINPH.2006.03.011