Biomedical subjects
Publications and source records attributed to Valerie P Jackson.
When evaluating mammograms, one looks for masses, areas of asymmetry or architectural distortion, and microcalcifications. This article discusses the imaging evaluation and the management of lesions found on screening and diagnostic mammography, with the focus on commonly encountered questions and dilemmas.
PURPOSE: To investigate the training and attitudes of residents regarding breast imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A telephone survey was conducted with 201 4th-year residents (postgraduate medical school year 5) and 10 3rd-year residents (postgraduate medical school year 4) at 211 accredited radiology residencies in the United States and Canada. Survey topics included organization of the breast imaging section, residents' role in the section, clinical practice protocols of the training institution, residents' personal thoughts about breast imaging, and their interest in performing breast imaging in the future. RESULTS: Of 211 programs, 203 (96%) had dedicated breast imaging rotations; 196 (93%) rotations were 8 weeks or longer; 153 (73%), 12 weeks or longer. Residents dictated reports in 199 (94%) programs. Residents performed real-time ultrasonography (US) in 186 (88%) programs, needle localization in 199 (94%), US-guided biopsy in 174 (82%), and stereotactically guided biopsy in 181 (86%). One hundred eighty-four (87%) residents rated interpretation of mammograms more stressful than they did that of other images, and 137 (65%) believed mammograms should be interpreted by subspecialists. One hundred thirty-five (64%) residents would not consider a fellowship in breast imaging if offered, and 133 (63%) would not want to spend 25% or more of their time in clinical practice on interpretation of mammograms. The most common reasons given for not considering a fellowship or interpretation of mammograms were that breast imaging was not an interesting field, that they feared lawsuits, and that it was too stressful. Fellowships were offered at 53 programs, and at 46 programs, a total of 63 fellows were recruited. CONCLUSION: Residency training in breast imaging has improved in terms of time and curriculum. However, a majority of the residents would not consider a fellowship and did not want to interpret mammograms in their future practices.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The shortage of academic radiologists reveals an urgent need to attract more residents into academic careers. A great deal of attention has been focused on research, but few programmatic initiatives have addressed the development of the next generation of radiology educators. The purpose of this study was to develop and test a new 3-month residency elective in education. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A large academic radiology department developed a 3-month education elective, during which two residents would be relieved of clinical duties and focus full-time on tasks related to their development as educators, including the completion of a major educational project. RESULTS: Two residents, in their 3rd year and 4th year of residency, respectively, proposed to collaborate in developing a Web-delivered tutorial for the department's senior medical student clerkship. At the end of 3 months, their radiology tutorial was introduced. In its 1st month, it received a mean rating of 4.3 on a five-point scale. The residents stated that the elective had enabled them to develop important skills in instructional technology, put into practice their enhanced understanding of learning psychology, and substantially strengthened their overall commitment to academic careers. CONCLUSION: It is vital that residency programs focus on developing the next generation of radiology educators. This ongoing education elective represents one successful model.
The residency review committee's program requirements guide the development of the details of each ACGME-accredited residency program. The sponsoring institution, however, has the overall responsibility, through the institutional requirements, to ensure that all facets of high-quality graduate medical education are available for all residents in these programs. It is imperative that there be close interaction between residency program directors, departmental education coordinators, and the GME officials of the institution, especially as ACGME regulations have become more complex.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
OBJECTIVE: The objectives were to evaluate mammographic changes in breast density that are associated with raloxifene or hormone therapy and to compare the safety profiles of the two therapies. STUDY DESIGN: Postmenopausal women older than 60 years who had a bone mineral density T-score of < or =-1 were assigned randomly to receive raloxifene hydrochloride 60 mg/day or continuous-combined hormone therapy that consisted of conjugated equine estrogen 0.625 mg/day plus medroxyprogesterone acetate 2.5 mg/day in a 1-year, open-label study. Radiologists who were blinded to the treatment assignment assessed the mammograms according to the American College of Radiology Breast Image Reporting and Data System breast density categories. Breast density changes were analyzed for treatment differences. RESULTS: After 12 months of treatment, 0.9% of the women who received raloxifene had increased mammographic breast density compared with 27.4% of the women who received continuous-combined hormone therapy (P <.001). In the continuous-combined hormone therapy group, 77% of the women reported breast tenderness at any time during the study, compared to 22% of the women in the raloxifene group. CONCLUSION: In postmenopausal women with low bone mass, raloxifene therapy for 12 months does not increase mammographic breast density, whereas continuous-combined hormone therapy substantially increases breast density in a significant number of women.
PURPOSE: To determine whether training in the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) improves observer performance and agreement with the consensus of experienced breast imagers with regard to mammographic feature analysis and final assessment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A test set of mammograms was developed, with 54 proven lesions consisting of 28 masses (nine [32%] malignancies) and 26 microcalcifications (10 [38%] malignancies). Three experienced breast imagers reviewed cases independently and by means of consensus. Twenty-three practicing mammogram-interpreting physicians reviewed mammograms before and after a day's lectures on BI-RADS. Observer performance before and after training was measured by means of agreement (kappa) with consensus description and assessments, rate of biopsy of malignant and benign lesions, and areas under receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Performance was also measured for 11 participants 2-3 months after training. RESULTS: Improved agreement with consensus feature analysis was found for mass margins and/or asymmetries, with a pretraining generalized kappa value of 0.36 and a posttraining generalized kappa value of 0.41. Similar improvement was seen for description of calcification morphology (pretraining kappa value of 0.36 improving to 0.44 after training). No improvement was seen in describing calcification distribution. Final assessments were more consistent after training, with a pretraining kappa value of 0.31, as compared with 0.45 after training. The mean biopsy rate for malignant lesions improved from 73% (range, 53%-89%) before training to 88% (range, 74%-100%) after training, with minimal increase in mean biopsy rate of benign lesions (43% [range, 26%-60%] before to 51% [range, 31%-63%] after training), and no net change in area under the ROC curve, as compared with histopathologic findings. For the subset of participants with delayed follow-up, no significant decline in posttraining results was seen. CONCLUSION: BI-RADS training resulted in improved agreement with the consensus of experienced breast imagers for feature analysis and final assessment. It is important that trainees showed improved rates of recommending biopsy for malignant lesions. This effect was maintained over 2-3 months.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
PURPOSE: To develop an Objective Structured Clinical Examination for assessing the reporting skills of radiology residents. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The approach used in this study derives from performance-based assessment, that is, tests in which actual performance of a skill is observed and measured. For this task, 29 radiology residents and five faculty members (n = 34) independently dictated reports regarding a set of 20 cases with radiographs in 1 hour. The task was performed in a controlled environment. Data were analyzed by using analysis of variance and tests for linear trends, with the expectation of increasing performance with increasing experience. RESULTS: Significant relationships were observed between subjects' experience and the mean number of cases completed (F = 4.46, P =.006), the mean number of well-specified impressions (F = 5.84, P =.001), and the mean number of urgent or discrepant findings noted (F = 3.67, P =.015). Results also demonstrated a clear linear trend of increasing performance with increasing experience with each variable (P =.002, <.001, and.002, respectively, for t tests with polynomial contrasts). CONCLUSION: The significant linear trends indicate that reporting skills increase with increasing experience in the program. This finding supports the validity of the measurement. The Objective Structured Clinical Examination provides a means of assessing radiology resident reporting skills.