ORCID Profile
0000-0003-0043-2674
Current Organisations
University of Sydney
,
DetectED-X Pty Ltd
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: SPIE
Date: 15-02-2021
DOI: 10.1117/12.2582099
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 06-10-2016
Abstract: This work aims to explore radiation doses delivered in screening mammography in Australia, with a focus on whether compressed breast thickness should be used as a guide when determining patient derived diagnostic reference levels (DRLs). Anonymized mammograms (52,405) were retrieved from a central database, and DICOM headers were extracted using third party software. Women with breast implants, breast thicknesses outside 20-110 mm and images with incomplete exposure or quality assurance (QA) data were excluded. Exposure and QA information were utilized to calculate the mean glandular dose (MGD) for 45,054 mammograms from 61 units representing four manufacturers using previously well-established methods. The 75th and 95th percentiles were calculated across median image MGDs obtained for all included data and according to specific compressed breast thickness ranges. The overall median image MGD, minimum, maximum were: 1.39, 0.19 and 10.00 mGy, respectively, the 75th and 95th percentiles across all units' median image MGD for 60 ± 5 mm compressed breast thickness were 2.06 and 2.69 mGy respectively. Median MGDs, minimum, maximum, 75th and 95th percentiles were presented for nine compressed breast thickness ranges, DRLs for NSW are suggested for the compressed breast thickness range of 60 ± 5 mm for the whole study and three detector technologies CR, DR, and photon counting to be 2.06, 2.22, 2.04 and 0.79 mGy respectively. MGD is dependent upon compressed breast thickness and it is recommended that DRL values should be specific to compressed breast thickness and image detector technology.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 05-2021
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 10-2020
Publisher: Future Medicine Ltd
Date: 11-2019
Abstract: Aim: To investigate how breast radiologists from Jordan and Australia differ in accuracy when examining the set of test screening cases. Materials & methods: A total of 27 Jordanian and 115 Australian breast radiologists were requested to read 60 mammographic images and to indicate the location of any perceived lesion and record a confidence level ranging from 1 to 5. Jackknife alternative free-response receiver operating characteristic, location sensitivity and specificity were calculated and compared for both Australian and Jordanian readers. Results: Australian readers achieved significantly higher readings accuracy than Jordanian readers retrospectively in terms of Jackknife alternative free-response receiver operating characteristic (75th percentile values: 0.863 vs 0.600 p = 0.001) and location sensitivity (75th percentile values 0.673 vs 0.571 p = 0.022). Conclusion: Australian radiologists achieved higher performance in reading breast mammograms than Jordanian radiologists.
Publisher: SPIE
Date: 04-03-2019
DOI: 10.1117/12.2513185
Publisher: British Institute of Radiology
Date: 13-02-2018
DOI: 10.1259/BJR.20180032
Publisher: SPIE
Date: 16-03-2020
DOI: 10.1117/12.2543503
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 11-10-2021
DOI: 10.1038/S41598-021-99582-5
Abstract: The information captured by the gist signal, which refers to radiologists’ first impression arising from an initial global image processing, is poorly understood. We examined whether the gist signal can provide complementary information to data captured by radiologists (experiment 1), or computer algorithms (experiment 2) based on detailed mammogram inspection. In the first experiment, 19 radiologists assessed a case set twice, once based on a half-second image presentation (i.e., gist signal) and once in the usual viewing condition. Their performances in two viewing conditions were compared using repeated measure correlation (rm-corr). The cancer cases (19 cases × 19 readers) exhibited non-significant trend with rm-corr = 0.012 ( p = 0.82, CI: −0.09, 0.12). For normal cases (41 cases × 19 readers), a weak correlation of rm-corr = 0.238 ( p 0.001, CI: 0.17, 0.30) was found. In the second experiment, we combined the abnormality score from a state-of-the-art deep learning-based tool (DL) with the radiological gist signal using a support vector machine (SVM). To obtain the gist signal, 53 radiologists assessed images based on half-second image presentation. The SVM performance for each radiologist and an average reader, whose gist responses were the mean abnormality scores given by all 53 readers to each image was assessed using leave-one-out cross-validation. For the average reader, the AUC for gist, DL, and the SVM, were 0.76 (CI: 0.62–0.86), 0.79 (CI: 0.63–0.89), and 0.88 (CI: 0.79–0.94). For all readers with a gist AUC significantly better than chance-level, the SVM outperformed DL. The gist signal provided malignancy evidence with no or weak associations with the information captured by humans in normal radiologic reporting, which involves detailed mammogram inspection. Adding gist signal to a state-of-the-art deep learning-based tool improved its performance for the breast cancer detection.
Publisher: SPIE
Date: 15-02-2021
DOI: 10.1117/12.2580835
Publisher: British Institute of Radiology
Date: 2021
DOI: 10.1259/BJR.20200734
Abstract: This work establishes the prototype of a new innovative risk model that aims to evaluate the total risk involved with screening mammography for each in idual female. This has been specifically designed to accommodate any combination of lifetime screening regimes, using only the information gathered from a single mammographic examination. This model prototype was developed with the aid of a large dataset of images from the Cancer Institute New South Wales (CINSW) with over 30,000 images from over 7000 examinations. Each examination is derived from a separate female. This prototype which we have called Breast In idualised Risk of Radiation-Induced Screening Cancer (Breast-iRRISC) is a novel tool for the assessment of the lifetime risk involved with screening mammography. The results demonstrate the applicability of this approach to the various screening regimes utilised around the globe, in addition to the personalised screening frequency patterns females have undergone and are likely to receive in the future. This unique tailored approach to risk assessment will further empower females and clinicians towards a more informed clinical decision process regarding future imaging pathways. It will also inform health policy decisions regarding alternate screening durations and intervals. Breast-iRRISC is a novel tool that provides females, clinicians and health policymakers around the globe with the ability to quantify the lifetime risk of radiation-induced breast cancer from screening mammography on an in idual level from a single exposure.
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 27-12-2014
DOI: 10.1093/RPD/NCU365
Abstract: This study aims to review the literature on existing diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) in digital mammography and methodologies for establishing them. To this end, a systematic search through Medline, Cinahl, Web of Science, Scopus and Google scholar was conducted using search terms extracted from three terms: DRLs, digital mammography and breast screen. The search resulted in 1539 articles of which 22 were included after a screening process. Relevant data from the included studies were summarised and analysed. Differences were found in the methods utilised to establish DRLs including test subjects types, protocols followed, conversion factors employed, breast compressed thicknesses and percentile values adopted. These differences complicate comparison of DRLs among countries hence, an internationally accepted protocol would be valuable so that international comparisons can be made.
Publisher: SPIE
Date: 16-03-2020
DOI: 10.1117/12.2549921
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 10-2020
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 02-2020
DOI: 10.1016/J.CRAD.2019.10.006
Abstract: Accurate interpretation of radiological images involves a complex visual search that relies on several cognitive processes, including selective attention, working memory, and decision-making. Patient outcomes often depend on the accuracy of image interpretations, and yet research has revealed that conclusions vary significantly from one radiologist to another. A myriad of factors has been shown to contribute to the likelihood of interpretative errors and discrepancies, including the radiologist's level of experience and fatigue, and these factors are well reported elsewhere however, a potentially important factor that has been given little previous consideration is how radiologists' interpretations might be impacted by the time of day at which the reading takes place, a factor that other disciplines have shown to be a determinant of competency. The available literature shows that while the time of day is known to significantly impact some cognitive functions that likely relate to reading competence, including selective visual attention and visual working memory, little is known about the impact of the time of day on radiology interpretation performance. This review explores the evidence regarding the relationship between time of day and performance, with a particular emphasis on radiological activities.
Publisher: EpiSmart Science Vector Ltd
Date: 09-2020
Publisher: SPIE
Date: 22-05-2020
DOI: 10.1117/12.2564275
Publisher: British Institute of Radiology
Date: 2022
DOI: 10.1259/BJR.20210895
Abstract: To examine whether radiologists’ performances are consistent throughout a reading session and whether any changes in performance over the reading task differ depending on experience of the reader. The performance of ten radiologists reading a test set of 60 mammographic cases without breaks was assessed using an ANOVA, 2 × 3 factorial design. Participants were categorized as more (≥2,000 mammogram readings per year) or less ( ,000 readings per year) experienced. Three series of 20 cases were chosen to ensure comparable difficulty and presented in the same sequence to all readers. It usually takes around 30 min for a radiologist to complete each of the 20-case series, resulting in a total of 90 min for the 60 mammographic cases. The sensitivity, specificity, lesion sensitivity, and area under the ROC curve were calculated for each series. We hypothesized that the order in which a series was read (i.e. fixed-series sequence) would have a significant main effect on the participants’ performance. We also determined if significant interactions exist between the fixed-series sequence and radiologist experience. Significant linear interactions were found between experience and the fixed sequence of the series for sensitivity (F[1] =5.762, p = .04, partial η 2 = .41) and lesion sensitivity. (F[1] =6.993, p = .03, partial η 2 = .46). The two groups’ mean scores were similar for the first series but progressively erged. By the end of the third series, significant differences in sensitivity and lesion sensitivity were evident, with the more experienced in iduals demonstrating improving and the less experienced declining performance. Neither experience nor series sequence significantly affected the specificity or the area under the ROC curve. Radiologists’ performance may change considerably during a reading session, apparently as a function of experience, with less experienced radiologists declining in sensitivity and lesion sensitivity while more experienced radiologists actually improve. With the increasing demands on radiologists to undertake high-volume reporting, we suggest that junior radiologists be made aware of possible sensitivity and lesion sensitivity deterioration over time so they can schedule breaks during continuous reading sessions that are appropriate to them, rather than try to emulate their more experienced colleagues. Less-experienced radiologists demonstrated a reduction in mammographic diagnostic accuracy in later stages of the reporting sessions. This may suggest that extending the duration of reporting sessions to compensate for increasing workloads may not represent the optimal solution for less-experienced radiologists.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 03-2022
DOI: 10.1016/J.JMIR.2021.12.002
Abstract: In medical imaging a benefit to risk analysis is required when justifying or implementing diagnostic procedures. Screening mammography is no exception and in particular concerns around the use of radiation to help diagnose cancer must be addressed. The Medline database and various established reports on breast screening and radiological protection were utilised to explore this review. The benefit of screening is well argued the ability to detect and treat breast cancer has led to a 91% 5-year survival rate and 497 deaths prevented from breast cancer amongst 100,000 screened women. Subsequently, screening guidelines by various countries recommend annual, biennial or triennial screening from ages somewhere between 40-74 years. Whilst the literature presents different perspectives on screening younger and older women, the current evidence of benefit for screening women <40 and ≥75 years is currently not strong. The radiation dose and associated risk delivered to each woman for a single examination is dependent upon age, breast density and breast thickness, however the average mean glandular dose is around 2.5-3 mGy, and this would result in 65 induced cancers and 8 deaths per 100,000 women over a screening lifetime from 40-74 years. This results in a ratio of lives saved to deaths from induced cancer of 62:1. Therefore, compared to the potential mortality reduction achievable with screening mammography, the risk is small.
Publisher: SPIE-Intl Soc Optical Eng
Date: 24-01-2017
Publisher: SPIE
Date: 22-03-2016
DOI: 10.1117/12.2216698
No related grants have been discovered for Moayyad Suleiman.