Cargando…

RRIMS: Radiation Risk In Mammography Screening — model evaluation

OBJECTIVE: The Radiation Risk In Mammography Screening (RRIMS) model was introduced as a novel tool to help females accurately calculate their lifetime mean glandular dose (MGD) and estimate their population-level risk of radiation-induced breast cancer incidence and mortality. METHODS: The model’s...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hooshmand, Sahand, Reed, Warren M., Suleiman, Mo'ayyad E., Brennan, Patrick C.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The British Institute of Radiology. 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10646624/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37750941
http://dx.doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20230250
_version_ 1785134931335184384
author Hooshmand, Sahand
Reed, Warren M.
Suleiman, Mo'ayyad E.
Brennan, Patrick C.
author_facet Hooshmand, Sahand
Reed, Warren M.
Suleiman, Mo'ayyad E.
Brennan, Patrick C.
author_sort Hooshmand, Sahand
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: The Radiation Risk In Mammography Screening (RRIMS) model was introduced as a novel tool to help females accurately calculate their lifetime mean glandular dose (MGD) and estimate their population-level risk of radiation-induced breast cancer incidence and mortality. METHODS: The model’s accuracy was evaluated by comparing the received MGD of 317 women who had undergone a total of 733 visits across one to four rounds of screening. This was achieved by comparing the RRIMS predicted dose values with the same examination dose calculated manually by hand. Qualitative and quantitative statistical analyses were performed to assess the percentage difference (% diff) or agreement between the two values. RESULTS: Qualitative statistical analysis using the Bland–Altman plots demonstrated a statistically significant bias for the % diff between the manually calculated and RRIMS predicted dose values, where the mean (bias) was −2.02% with an upper and lower limit of agreement of 40.24% and −44.27%, respectively. Quantitative statistical analysis revealed an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC, 3,1) of 0.64 (p-value < 0.001) and a Kendall’s W of 0.83 (p-value < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The results indicate a statistically significant and reasonably good level of agreement between the manually calculated vs RRIMS predicted dose values. This work was focused on one of the major mammography equipment manufacturers that is Hologic, however there is potential for a multivendor applicability study of this model with future iterations. This will further improve upon this innovative dose and risk prediction tool that can empower healthcare professionals when making informed decisions and enhance patient care. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This paper assesses the precision of the dose and risk model that our team has previously established. The results bring us one step closer to providing females and clinicians with a useful tool that can help explain and contextualise the benefits and risks associated with screening mammography.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10646624
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher The British Institute of Radiology.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-106466242023-10-03 RRIMS: Radiation Risk In Mammography Screening — model evaluation Hooshmand, Sahand Reed, Warren M. Suleiman, Mo'ayyad E. Brennan, Patrick C. Br J Radiol Full Paper OBJECTIVE: The Radiation Risk In Mammography Screening (RRIMS) model was introduced as a novel tool to help females accurately calculate their lifetime mean glandular dose (MGD) and estimate their population-level risk of radiation-induced breast cancer incidence and mortality. METHODS: The model’s accuracy was evaluated by comparing the received MGD of 317 women who had undergone a total of 733 visits across one to four rounds of screening. This was achieved by comparing the RRIMS predicted dose values with the same examination dose calculated manually by hand. Qualitative and quantitative statistical analyses were performed to assess the percentage difference (% diff) or agreement between the two values. RESULTS: Qualitative statistical analysis using the Bland–Altman plots demonstrated a statistically significant bias for the % diff between the manually calculated and RRIMS predicted dose values, where the mean (bias) was −2.02% with an upper and lower limit of agreement of 40.24% and −44.27%, respectively. Quantitative statistical analysis revealed an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC, 3,1) of 0.64 (p-value < 0.001) and a Kendall’s W of 0.83 (p-value < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The results indicate a statistically significant and reasonably good level of agreement between the manually calculated vs RRIMS predicted dose values. This work was focused on one of the major mammography equipment manufacturers that is Hologic, however there is potential for a multivendor applicability study of this model with future iterations. This will further improve upon this innovative dose and risk prediction tool that can empower healthcare professionals when making informed decisions and enhance patient care. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This paper assesses the precision of the dose and risk model that our team has previously established. The results bring us one step closer to providing females and clinicians with a useful tool that can help explain and contextualise the benefits and risks associated with screening mammography. The British Institute of Radiology. 2023-11 2023-10-03 /pmc/articles/PMC10646624/ /pubmed/37750941 http://dx.doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20230250 Text en © 2023 The Authors. Published by the British Institute of Radiology https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 Unported License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted non-commercial reuse, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Full Paper
Hooshmand, Sahand
Reed, Warren M.
Suleiman, Mo'ayyad E.
Brennan, Patrick C.
RRIMS: Radiation Risk In Mammography Screening — model evaluation
title RRIMS: Radiation Risk In Mammography Screening — model evaluation
title_full RRIMS: Radiation Risk In Mammography Screening — model evaluation
title_fullStr RRIMS: Radiation Risk In Mammography Screening — model evaluation
title_full_unstemmed RRIMS: Radiation Risk In Mammography Screening — model evaluation
title_short RRIMS: Radiation Risk In Mammography Screening — model evaluation
title_sort rrims: radiation risk in mammography screening — model evaluation
topic Full Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10646624/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37750941
http://dx.doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20230250
work_keys_str_mv AT hooshmandsahand rrimsradiationriskinmammographyscreeningmodelevaluation
AT reedwarrenm rrimsradiationriskinmammographyscreeningmodelevaluation
AT suleimanmoayyade rrimsradiationriskinmammographyscreeningmodelevaluation
AT brennanpatrickc rrimsradiationriskinmammographyscreeningmodelevaluation