title: Effects of lesion conspicuity on visual search in mammogram reading.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  The goal of mammography screening is to detect breast cancer at early stages, but because of the complexity of the breast parenchyma and the variability of signs of the disease, many cancers go unreported when initially visible on the mammogram. We compared the visual search strategy used by experienced mammographers in a case set where they examined both the mammogram in which a malignant mass was discovered at screening mammography and the most recent prior mammogram.
  
  
  METHODS
  Four experienced mammographers participated in this experiment. They read a case set of 20 two-view mammograms, of which 15 contained a malignant mass and 5 were lesion-free, in two trials. For each of the cancer cases, two versions were shown to the observers: the one in which the cancer was reported in the clinical practice, called the "current" mammograms, and the most recent prior. Each trial had a balanced mix of current and prior mammograms. In addition, the same set of lesion-free cases was shown to the observers in both trials. The eye movements of the observers were tracked, and visual search parameters such as time to hit the location of the malignant mass, dwell, and mean pupil size in the location of the cancer were collected. Statistical analyses were used to determine whether there were differences between the current and prior mammograms.
  
  
  RESULTS
  A total of 66% of the malignant masses in the current mammograms and 57% in the priors attracted some amount of visual attention. From these, 71% yielded a report on the current mammograms, but only 40% on the priors. In the cases where the observer saw the malignant mass, they did so within 2 seconds of image display, regardless of whether the mammogram was current or prior.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Most unreported malignant masses attracted some amount of visual attention, but it was in the processing of the information extracted in the location of the lesion that most errors occurred. In our experiment, approximately 70% of the total time used by the observers for visual scan of the cases was spent gathering information to corroborate the hypothesis already formed by the radiologist.
authors.affiliation: Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh, 300 Halket Street, Suite 4200, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA. cmellothoms@magee.edu
authors.forename: Claudia
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Mello-Thoms
authors.forename: Lara
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Hardesty
authors.forename: Jules
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Sumkin
authors.forename: Marie
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Ganott
authors.forename: Christiane
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Hakim
authors.forename: Cynthia
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Britton
authors.forename: Jennifer
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Stalder
authors.forename: Glenn
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Maitz
mesh_terms: D001943:Breast Neoplasms / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging*; D003937:Diagnosis, Differential; D003951:Diagnostic Errors; D005133:Eye Movements / Q000502:physiology*; D006801:Humans; D008327:Mammography; D015588:Observer Variation; D018709:Statistics, Nonparametric; D014796:Visual Perception / Q000502:physiology*