J Korean Soc Radiol.  2017 Jan;76(1):30-38. 10.3348/jksr.2017.76.1.30.

Effectiveness of Mammography Boot Camp for Radiology Residents

• Kim KW
• Lee EH
• Kim JY
• Park YM
• Kim HJ
• Choi EJ
• Koh KH
• Kim Y
• Kim HW
• Nam SY
• Choi B
• Kim KS
• Lee JH
• Bae K
• Kim DB
• Kim YJ
• Seo JY
• Jeong SH
• Lee MS

• KMID: 2365049
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3348/jksr.2017.76.1.30

Abstract

PURPOSE
To evaluate an educational effect of the mammography boot camp (MBC) for radiology residents and analyze affecting factors.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Between December 2014 and February 2015, radiology residents in 16 institutions performed the MBC program. We compared the educational effect (score difference between pre- and post-camp test) using 25 case series and analyzed the affecting factors including institution, grades of residents, training periods, presence of sub-specialized breast staff, breast density, and types of cases.
RESULTS
The mean scores of 92 residents were 52.80 ± 18.10 and 72.50 ± 12.91 in the pre- and post-camp test, respectively (p = 0.001). There was no significant difference of educational effect according to institution (19.70 ± 16.31), grade, or training period. Although the educational effect of non-trainees was superior to that of trainees (28.10 ± 17.55 vs. 15.90 ± 14.22; p = 0.001), the scores of trainees were higher than those of non-trainees. The diagnostic accuracy showed more improvement in a fatty breast and cases with microcalcifications than compared with others.
CONCLUSION
The MBC showed an effective educational result for radiology residents when interpretating a mammography. It was helpful even for non-trainees. The institution, grades training period, and presence of sub-specialized breast staff did not affect the educational effect.

MeSH Terms

Breast
Breast Neoplasms
Education
Mammography*

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Mean scores of pre- and post- camp test and educational effects according to the institutions. Black bar: mean score of pre-camp test in each institution, Gray bar: mean score of post-camp test in each institution, White bar: educational effect in each institution, Mid dotted line: mean score of pre-camp testn all institutions, Upper dotted line: mean score of post-camp test all institutions, Lower dotted line: mean educational effect in all institutions.

• 

  Fig. 2 Case No. 23. Invasive ductal carcinoma. Right mediolateral view (A) and right craniocaudal view (B) show a spiculated mass in the posterior portion of the upper inner quadrant. It was the most commonly answered true positive case showing diagnostic accuracy of 78.2% in the pre-camp test and 97.8% in the post-camp test.

• 

  Fig. 3 Case No. 20. Invasive ductal carcinoma. Both mediolateral oblique (MLO) view shows an extremely dense breast. An asymmetrical spiculated margin is seen in the upper posterior portion of the right MLO view, but it was not included in the craniocaudal view (not shown). It was the most commonly answered false negative case showing diagnostic accuracy of 7.6% in the pre-camp test and 39.1% in the post-camp test.

Reference

1. Moss SM, Cuckle H, Evans A, Johns L, Waller M, Bobrow L. Trial Management Group. Effect of mammographic screening from age 40 years on breast cancer mortality at 10 years' follow-up: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2006; 368:2053–2060.

2. Miller AB, Wall C, Baines CJ, Sun P, To T, Narod SA. Twenty five year follow-up for breast cancer incidence and mortality of the Canadian National Breast Screening Study: randomised screening trial. BMJ. 2014; 348:g366.

3. Bjurstam N, Björneld L, Warwick J, Sala E, Duffy SW, Nyström L, et al. The Gothenburg breast screening trial. Cancer. 2003; 97:2387–2396.

4. Tabár L, Vitak B, Chen TH, Yen AM, Cohen A, Tot T, et al. Swedish two-county trial: impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality during 3 decades. Radiology. 2011; 260:658–663.

5. Fitzpatrick-Lewis D, Hodgson N, Ciliska D, Peirson L, Gauld M, Liu YY. Breast cancer screening. Calgary: Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care;2011.

6. Gøtzsche PC, Jørgensen KJ. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013; (6):CD001877.

7. Lee EH, Park B, Kim NS, Seo HJ, Ko KL, Min JW, et al. The Korean guideline for breast cancer screening. J Korean Med Assoc. 2015; 58:408–419.

8. Jun JK. The past, present and future of national cancer screening program. In : Workshop for quality control in mammography interpretation for national cancer screening program; The Catholic Univ. of Korea. Seoul: St. Mary's Hospital;2011.

9. Shin HR. Assessment of outcome of early cancer screening program and setup of quality control system. Goyang: National cancer Center;2002.

10. Lee EH, Jun JK, Jung SE, Kim YM, Choi N. The efficacy of mammography boot camp to improve the performance of radiologists. Korean J Radiol. 2014; 15:578–585.

11. Mammography Quality Standards Act (MQSA). Accessed July 1, 2016. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/MammographyQualityStandardsActandProgram.

12. Lee EH, Jun JK, Kim YM, Bae KK, Hwang KW, Choi BB, et al. Mammography boot camp to improve a quality of national cancer screening program in Korea: a report about a test run in 2012. J Korean Soc Breast Screen. 2013; 10:162–168.

13. Lee EH, Kim SH, An JK, Choi SH, Kim SJ. Interpreting performance of mammograms by radiology residents trained in breast imaging: comparison with radiologists who attended mammography boot camp. J Korean Soc Radiol. 2014; 71:288–295.

14. Bird RE, Wallace TW, Yankaskas BC. Analysis of cancers missed at screening mammography. Radiology. 1992; 184:613–617.

15. Majid AS, de Paredes ES, Doherty RD, Sharma NR, Salvador X. Missed breast carcinoma: pitfalls and pearls. Radiographics. 2003; 23:881–895.

16. Lee EH, Cha JH, Han D, Ryu DS, CHoi YH, Hwang KT, et al. Analysis of precious screening examinations for patients with breast cancer. J Korean Radiol Soc. 2007; 56:191–202.

17. Rawashdeh MA, Lee WB, Bourne RM, Ryan EA, Pietrzyk MW, Reed WM, et al. Markers of good performance in mammography depend on number of annual readings. Radiology. 2013; 269:61–67.