Search

Background: Abbreviated breast MRI (FAST MRI) is being introduced into clinical practice to screen women with mammographically dense breasts or with a personal history of breast cancer. This study aimed to optimise diagnostic accuracy through the adaptation of interpretation-training. Methods: A FAST MRI interpretation-training programme (short presentations and guided hands-on workstation teaching) was adapted to provide additional training during the assessment task (interpretation of an enriched dataset of 125 FAST MRI scans) by giving readers feedback about the true outcome of each scan immediately after each scan was interpreted (formative assessment). Reader interaction with the FAST MRI scans used developed software (RiViewer) that recorded reader opinions and reading times for each scan. The training programme was additionally adapted for remote e-learning delivery. Study design: Prospective, blinded interpretation of an enriched dataset by multiple readers. Results: 43 mammogram readers completed the training, 22 who interpreted breast MRI in their clinical role (Group 1) and 21 who did not (Group 2). Overall sensitivity was 83% (95%CI 81–84%; 1994/2408), specificity 94% (95%CI 93–94%; 7806/8338), readers' agreement with the true outcome kappa = 0.75 (95%CI 0.74–0.77) and diagnostic odds ratio = 70.67 (95%CI 61.59–81.09). Group 1 readers showed similar sensitivity (84%) to Group 2 (82% p = 0.14), but slightly higher specificity (94% v. 93%, p = 0.001). Concordance with the ground truth increased significantly with the number of FAST MRI scans read through the formative assessment task (p = 0.002) but by differing amounts depending on whether or not a reader had previously attended FAST MRI training (interaction p = 0.02). Concordance with the ground truth was significantly associated with reading batch size (p = 0.02), tending to worsen when more than 50 scans were read per batch. Group 1 took a median of 56 seconds (range 8–47,466) to interpret each FAST MRI scan compared with 78 (14–22,830, p < 0.0001) for Group 2. Conclusions: Provision of immediate feedback to mammogram readers during the assessment test set reading task increased specificity for FAST MRI interpretation and achieved high diagnostic accuracy. Optimal reading-batch size for FAST MRI was 50 reads per batch. Trial registration (25/09/2019): ISRCTN16624917. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Abbreviated breast MRI (abMRI) is being introduced in breast screening trials and clinical practice, particularly for women with dense breasts. Upscaling abMRI provision requires the workforce of mammogram readers to learn to effectively interpret abMRI. The purpose of this study was to examine the diagnostic accuracy of mammogram readers to interpret abMRI after a single day of standardised small-group training and to compare diagnostic performance of mammogram readers experienced in full-protocol breast MRI (fpMRI) interpretation (Group 1) with that of those without fpMRI interpretation experience (Group 2).Methods: Mammogram readers were recruited from six NHS Breast Screening Programme sites. Small-group hands-on workstation training was provided, with subsequent prospective, independent, blinded interpretation of an enriched dataset with known outcome. A simplified form of abMRI (first post-contrast subtracted images (FAST MRI), displayed as maximum-intensity projection (MIP) and subtracted slice stack) was used. Per-breast and per-lesion diagnostic accuracy analysis was undertaken, with comparison across groups, and double-reading simulation of a consecutive screening subset.Results: 37 readers (Group 1: 17, Group 2: 20) completed the reading task of 125 scans (250 breasts) (total = 9250 reads). Overall sensitivity was 86% (95% confidence interval (CI) 84-87%; 1776/2072) and specificity 86% (95%CI 85-86%; 6140/7178). Group 1 showed significantly higher sensitivity (843/952; 89%; 95%CI 86-91%) and higher specificity (2957/3298; 90%; 95%CI 89-91%) than Group 2 (sensitivity = 83%; 95%CI 81-85% (933/1120) p < 0.0001; specificity = 82%; 95%CI 81-83% (3183/3880) p < 0.0001). Inter-reader agreement was higher for Group 1 (kappa = 0.73; 95%CI 0.68-0.79) than for Group 2 (kappa = 0.51; 95%CI 0.45-0.56). Specificity improved for Group 2, from the first 55 cases (81%) to the remaining 70 (83%) (p = 0.02) but not for Group 1 (90-89% p = 0.44), whereas sensitivity remained consistent for both Group 1 (88-89%) and Group 2 (83-84%).Conclusions: Single-day abMRI interpretation training for mammogram readers achieved an overall diagnostic performance within benchmarks published for fpMRI but was insufficient for diagnostic accuracy of mammogram readers new to breast MRI to match that of experienced fpMRI readers. Novice MRI reader performance improved during the reading task, suggesting that additional training could further narrow this performance gap. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Rapid magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) protocols may be effective in the emergency department (ED) to evaluate nontraumatic neurologic complaints. We evaluate neuroimaging (rapid MRI [rMRI]), head computerized tomography [HCT], and full MRI) use following widespread implementation of rMRI protocols in a pediatric emergency department (ED).Methods: We conducted a retrospective study in a tertiary care pediatric ED of encounters with neuroimaging during two 9-month periods: one prior to (control period) and one after generalized availability of 4 rMRI protocols (rMRI period). The primary outcome was differences in neuroimaging rates between the two periods. Secondary outcomes included ED process measures, unsuccessful imaging, and undetected pathology, with full MRI within 14 days as the reference standard.Results: There were 1052 encounters with neuroimaging during the control and 1308 during the rMRI periods. Differences in neuroimaging between periods were 27.7% for rMRI (95% CI, 24.4, 31.0), - 21.5% for HCT (95% CI, - 25.5, - 17.5), and - 6.2% for full MRI (95% CI, - 9.3, - 3.1%.) Time to imaging (182 [IQR 138-255] versus 86 [IQR 52-137] minutes) as well as ED length of stay (396 [IQR 304-484] versus 257 [IQR 196-334] minutes) was longer for rMRI versus HCT (p < 0.01). Between the control and rMRI periods, there were differences in types of neuroimaging performed for patients with altered mental status, headache, seizure, shunt dysfunction, stroke, syncope, trauma, vomiting, infection, and other neurologic complaints (p < 0.05). rMRI studies were unsuccessful in 3.6% of studies versus 0.0% of HCTs (p < 0.01). The 22 unsuccessful rMRI studies were unsuccessful due to artifacts from dental hardware (n = 2) and patient motion (n = 20). None of the rMRI studies with full MRI follow-up imaging had undetected pathology; the false negative rate for the HCT exams was as high as 25%.Conclusions: After routine ED use of 4 rMRI protocols, there was a more than 20% decrease in HCT use without missed diagnoses. Time to neuroimaging and length of stay were longer for rMRI than HCT, with higher rates of unsuccessful imaging. Despite these limitations, rMRI may be an alternative to HCT for nontraumatic complaints in the ED. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]