Radiographers supporting radiologists in the interpretation of screening mammography: a viable strategy to meet the shortage in the number of radiologists.

BackgroundAn alternative approach to the traditional model of radiologists interpreting screening mammography is necessary due to the shortage of radiologists to interpret screening mammograms in many countries.MethodsWe evaluated the performance of 15 Mexican radiographers, also known as radiologic technologists, in the interpretation of screening mammography after a 6 months training period in a screening setting. Fifteen radiographers received 6 months standardized training with radiologists in the interpretation of screening mammography using the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) system. A challenging test set of 110 cases developed by the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium was used to evaluate their performance. We estimated sensitivity, specificity, false positive rates, likelihood ratio of a positive test (LR+) and the area under the subject-specific Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) for diagnostic accuracy. A mathematical model simulating the consequences in costs and performance of two hypothetical scenarios compared to the status quo in which a radiologist reads all screening mammograms was also performed.ResultsRadiographer's sensitivity was comparable to the sensitivity scores achieved by U.S. radiologists who took the test but their false-positive rate was higher. Median sensitivity was 73.3 % (Interquartile range, IQR: 46.7-86.7 %) and the median false positive rate was 49.5 % (IQR: 34.7-57.9 %). The median LR+ was 1.4 (IQR: 1.3-1.7 %) and the median AUC was 0.6 (IQR: 0.6-0.7). A scenario in which a radiographer reads all mammograms first, and a radiologist reads only those that were difficult for the radiographer, was more cost-effective than a scenario in which either the radiographer or radiologist reads all mammograms.ConclusionsGiven the comparable sensitivity achieved by Mexican radiographers and U.S. radiologists on a test set, screening mammography interpretation by radiographers appears to be a possible adjunct to radiologists in countries with shortages of radiologists. Further studies are required to assess the effectiveness of different training programs in order to obtain acceptable screening accuracy, as well as the best approaches for the use of non-physician readers to interpret screening mammography

Prevalence of high-risk human papillomavirus types in Mexican women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and invasive carcinoma

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Prevalence of high risk (HR) human papillomavirus (HPV) types in the states of San Luis Potosí (SLP) and Guanajuato (Gto), Mexico, was determined by restriction fragment length-polymorphism (RFLP) analysis on the E6 ~250 bp (E6-250) HR-HPV products amplified from cervical scrapings of 442 women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and invasive carcinoma (280 from SLP and 192 from Gto). Fresh cervical scrapings for HPV detection and typing were obtained from all of them and cytological and/or histological diagnoses were performed on 383.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Low grade intraepithelial squamous lesions (LSIL) were diagnosed in 280 cases (73.1%), high grade intraepithelial squamous lesions (HSIL) in 64 cases (16.7%) and invasive carcinoma in 39 cases (10.2%). In the 437 cervical scrapings containing amplifiable DNA, only four (0.9%) were not infected by HPV, whereas 402 (92.0%) were infected HR-HPV and 31 (7.1%) by low-risk HPV. RFLP analysis of the amplifiable samples identified infections by one HR-HPV type in 71.4%, by two types in 25.9% and by three types in 2.7%. The overall prevalence of HR-HPV types was, in descending order: 16 (53.4%) > 31 (15.6%) > 18 (8.9%) > 35 (5.6) > 52 (5.4%) > 33 (1.2%) > 58 (0.7%) = unidentified types (0.7%); in double infections (type 58 absent in Gto) it was 16 (88.5%) > 31 (57.7%) > 35 (19.2%) > 18 (16.3%) = 52 (16.3%) > 33 (2.8%) = 58 (2.8%) > unidentified types (1.0%); in triple infections (types 33 and 58 absent in both states) it was 16 (100.0%) > 35 (54.5%) > 31 (45.5%) = 52 (45.5%) > 18 (27.3%). Overall frequency of cervical lesions was LSIL (73.1%) > HSIL (16.7%) > invasive cancer (10.2%). The ratio of single to multiple infections was inversely proportional to the severity of the lesions: 2.46 for LSIL, 2.37 for HSIL and 2.15 for invasive cancer. The frequency of HR-HPV types in HSIL and invasive cancer lesions was 16 (55.0%) > 31 (18.6%) > 35 (7.9%) > 52 (7.1%) > 18 (4.3%) > unidentified types (3.6%) > 33 (2.9%) > 58 (0.7%).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Ninety percent of the women included in this study were infected by HR-HPV, with a prevalence 1.14 higher in Gto. All seven HR-HPV types identifiable with the PCR-RFLP method used circulate in SLP and Gto, and were diagnosed in 99.3% of the cases. Seventy-one percent of HR-HPV infections were due to a single type, 25.9% were double and 2.7% were triple. Overall frequency of lesions was LSIL (73.1%) > HSIL (16.7%) > invasive cancer (10.2%), and the ratio of single to multiple infections was inversely proportional to severity of the lesions: 2.46 for LSIL, 2.37 for HSIL and 2.15 for invasive cancer. The frequency of HR-HPV types found in HSIL and invasive cancer was 16 (55.0%) > 31 (18.6%) > 35 (7.9%) > 52 (7.1%) > 18 (4.3%) > unidentified types (3.6%) > 33 (2.9%) > 58 (0.7%). Since the three predominant types (16, 31 and 18) cause 77.9% of the HR-HPV infections and immunization against type 16 prevents type 31 infections, in this region the efficacy of the prophylactic vaccine against types 16 and 18 would be close to 80%.</p