Background Double reading can be used in screening mammography, but it is labor intensive. There is limited evidence on whether trained radiographers (ie, technologists) may be used to provide double reading. Purpose To compare the performance of radiologists and radiographers double reading screening mammograms, considering reader experience level. Materials and Methods In this retrospective study, performance and experience data were obtained for radiologists and radiographer readers of all screening mammograms in England from April 2015 to March 2016. Cancer detection rate (CDR), recall rate (RR), and positive predictive value (PPV) of recall based on biopsy-proven findings were calculated for first readers. Performance metrics were analyzed according to reader professional group and years of reading experience using the analysis of variance test. P values less than .05 were considered to indicate statistically significant difference. Results During the study period, 401 readers (224 radiologists and 177 radiographers) double read 1 404 395 screening digital mammograms. There was no difference in CDR between radiologist and radiographer readers (mean, 7.84 vs 7.53 per 1000 examinations, respectively; P = .08) and no difference for readers with more than 10 years of experience compared with 5 years or fewer years of experience, regardless of professional group (mean, 7.75 vs 7.71 per 1000 examinations respectively, P = .87). No difference in the mean RR was observed between radiologists and radiographer readers (5.0% vs 5.2%, respectively, P = .63). A lower RR was seen for readers with more than 10 years of experience compared with 5 years or fewer, regardless of professional group (mean, 4.8% vs 5.8%, respectively; P = .001). No variation in PPV was observed between them (P = .42), with PPV values of 17.1% for radiologists versus 16.1% for radiographers. A higher PPV was seen for readers with more than 10 years of experience compared with 5 years or less, regardless of professional group (mean, 17.5% and 14.9%, respectively; P = .02). Conclusion No difference in performance was observed between radiographers and radiologists reading screening mammograms in a program that used double reading. Published under a CC BY 4.0 license Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Hooley and Durand in this issue.

OBJECTIVE: Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) breast biopsy has been recently introduced into clinical practice. This short communication describes the technique and potential as an alternative to MRI-guided biopsy., METHODS AND MATERIALS: An additional abnormality was detected on a breast MRI examination in a patient with lobular carcinoma. The lesion was occult on conventional mammography, tomosynthesis and ultrasound and required histological diagnosis. Traditionally, this would have necessitated an MRI-guided breast biopsy, but was performed under CESM guidance., RESULTS: A diagnostic CESM study was performed to ensure the lesion visibility with CESM and then targeted under CESM guidance. A limited diagnostic study, CESM scout and paired images for stereotactic targeting were obtained within a 10 min window following a single injection of iodinated contrast agent. The time from positioning in the biopsy device to releasing compression after biopsy and marker clip placement was 15 min. The biopsy confirmed the presence of multifocal breast cancer., CONCLUSION: CESM-guided breast biopsy is a new technique that can be successfully used as an alternative to MRI-guided breast biopsy., ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: CESM-guided biopsy can be used to sample breast lesions which remain occult on standard mammography and ultrasound.

PURPOSE: This retrospective study determined whether a test-set based assessment scheme (PERFORMS) used in a national breast screening programme could be used to predict real-life performance by investigating if the number of cancers missed by mammography readers in real-life related to the number of cancers missed in the PERFORMS test-set and whether real-life reading volumes affected performance., METHOD: Data was obtained from consenting readers in the screening programme in England (NHSBSP) where double reading is standard. The rate of cancers missed by individual first readers but correctly identified by second readers was compared with the number of cancers missed in the PERFORMS test-set over a 3-year period. NHSBSP readers are required to interpret at least 1500 cases per year as a first reader, so results were compared between readers who exceeded this target and those that did not. Parametric and non-parametric correlations were calculated., RESULTS: Amongst the 536 readers, there was a highly significant positive correlation between the real-life and PERFORMS test-set missed cancer metrics (Pearson Correlation = 0.228, n = 536, p < .0001, Spearman's rho = 0.265, n = 536, p < .0001). There was no significant difference in rates of missed cancers between the 452 readers who exceeded the 1500 first read per year target and those who did not (t(94.2) = -1.87, p = .0643, r = 0.19)., CONCLUSIONS: The use of a test-set based assessment scheme accurately reflects real-life mammography reading performance, indicating that it can be a useful tool in identifying poor reader performance. Crown Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

In the UK, women between 50-70 years are invited for 3-yearly mammography screening irrespective of their likelihood of developing breast cancer. The only risk adaption is for women with >30% lifetime risk who are offered annual magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and mammography, and annual mammography for some moderate-risk women. Using questionnaires, breast density, and polygenic risk scores, it is possible to stratify the population into the lowest 20% risk, who will develop <4% of cancers and the top 4%, who will develop 18% of cancers. Mammography is a good screening test but has low sensitivity of 60% in the 9% of women with the highest category of breast density (BIRADS D) who have a 2.5- to fourfold breast cancer risk. There is evidence that adding ultrasound to the screening mammogram can increase the cancer detection rate and reduce advanced stage interval and next round cancers. Similarly, alternative tests such as contrast-enhanced mammography (CESM) or abbreviated MRI (ABB-MRI) are much more effective in detecting cancer in women with dense breasts. Scintimammography has been shown to be a viable alternative for dense breasts or for follow-up in those with a personal history of breast cancer and scarring as result of treatment. For supplemental screening to be worthwhile in these women, new technologies need to reduce the number of stage II cancers and be cost effective when tested in large scale trials. This article reviews the evidence for supplemental imaging and examines whether a risk-stratified approach is feasible. Copyright © 2021 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Purpose: To compare an individual's Personal Performance in Mammographic Screening (PERFORMS) score with their Breast Screening Information System (BSIS) real-life performance data and determine which parameters in the PERFORMS scheme offer the best reflection of BSIS real-life performance metrics., Materials and Methods: In this retrospective study, the BSIS real-life performance metrics of individual readers (n = 452) in the National Health Service Breast Screening Program (NHSBSP) in England were compared with performance in the test set-based assessment scheme over a 3-year period from 2013 to 2016. Cancer detection rate (CDR), recall rate, and positive predictive value (PPV) were calculated for each reader, for both real-life screening and the PERFORMS test. For each metric, real-life and test set versions were compared using a Pearson correlation. The real-life CDR, recall rate, and PPV of outliers were compared against other readers (nonoutliers) using analysis of variance., Results: BSIS real-life CDRs, recall rates, and PPVs showed positive correlations with the equivalent PERFORMS measures (P < .001, P = .002, and P < .001, respectively). The mean real-life CDR of PERFORMS outliers was 7.2 per 1000 women screened and was significantly lower than other readers (nonoutliers) where the real-life CDR was 7.9 (P = .002). The mean real-life screening PPV of PERFORMS outliers was 0.14% and was significantly lower than the nonoutlier group who had a mean PPV of 0.17% (P = .006)., Conclusion: The use of test set-based assessment schemes in a breast screening program has the potential to predict and identify poor performance in real life.© RSNA, 2020Keywords: Breast, ScreeningSee also the commentary by Thigpen and Rapelyea in this issue. Copyright 2020 by the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) is a valuable tool in the diagnosis and staging of primary breast cancer. It combines an iodinated contrast agent with conventional mammography to improve diagnostic accuracy, particularly in women with denser parenchymal background patterns. This review describes the CESM technique, reviews performance compared to conventional mammography and magnetic resonance imaging, assesses its role in the diagnosis and staging of primary breast cancer, and investigates its potential as a screening tool. Copyright © 2018 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

AIM: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM), and gauge its "added value" in the symptomatic setting., MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective multi-reader review of 100 consecutive CESM examinations was performed. Anonymised low-energy (LE) images were reviewed and given a score for malignancy. At least 3 weeks later, the entire examination (LE and recombined images) was reviewed. Histopathology data were obtained for all cases. Differences in performance were assessed using receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analysis. Sensitivity, specificity, and lesion size (versus MRI or histopathology) differences were calculated., RESULTS: Seventy-three percent of cases were malignant at final histology, 27% were benign following standard triple assessment. ROC analysis showed improved overall performance of CESM over LE alone, with area under the curve of 0.93 versus 0.83 (p<0.025). CESM showed increased sensitivity (95% versus 84%, p<0.025) and specificity (81% versus 63%, p<0.025) compared to LE alone, with all five readers showing improved accuracy. Tumour size estimation at CESM was significantly more accurate than LE alone, the latter tending to undersize lesions. In 75% of cases, CESM was deemed a useful or significant aid to diagnosis., CONCLUSION: CESM provides immediately available, clinically useful information in the symptomatic clinic in patients with suspicious palpable abnormalities. Radiologist sensitivity, specificity, and size accuracy for breast cancer detection and staging are all improved using CESM as the primary mammographic investigation. Copyright © 2016 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.