METHODS: 5 radiologists read 1 identical test set of 200 mammographic (180 normal cases and 20 abnormal cases) 3 times and were requested to adhere to 3 different recall rate conditions: free recall, 15% and 10%. The radiologists were asked to mark the locations of suspicious lesions and provide a confidence rating for each decision. An independent expert radiologist identified the various types of cancers in the test set, including the presence of calcifications and the lesion location, including specific mammographic density.
RESULTS: Radiologists demonstrated lower sensitivity and receiver operating characteristic area under the curve for non-specific density/asymmetric density (H = 6.27, p = 0.04 and H = 7.35, p = 0.03, respectively) and mixed features (H = 9.97, p = 0.01 and H = 6.50, p = 0.04, respectively) when reading at 15% and 10% recall rates. No significant change was observed on cancer characterized with stellate masses (H = 3.43, p = 0.18 and H = 1.23, p = 0.54, respectively) and architectural distortion (H = 0.00, p = 1.00 and H = 2.00, p = 0.37, respectively). Across all recall conditions, stellate masses were likely to be recalled (90.0%), whereas non-specific densities were likely to be missed (45.6%).
CONCLUSION: Cancers with a stellate mass were more easily detected and were more likely to continue to be recalled, even at lower recall rates. Cancers with non-specific density and mixed features were most likely to be missed at reduced recall rates. Advances in knowledge: Internationally, recall rates vary within screening mammography programs considerably, with a range between 1% and 15%, and very little is known about the type of breast cancer appearances found when radiologists interpret screening mammograms at these various recall rates. Therefore, understanding the lesion types and the mammographic appearances of breast cancers that are affected by readers' recall decisions should be investigated.
METHODOLOGY: Breath samples of patients referred to the Gastroenterology Unit, Women's and Children's Hospital, North Adelaide, South Australia, for confirmation of the diagnosis of carbohydrate malabsorption were analysed with the Quintron microlyzer (Quintron Instrument Co., Milwaukee, USA) and the BreatH2 analyser, using the Quintron microlyzer as the gold standard.
RESULTS: Twenty-nine breath H2 tests (BHT) were performed in 29 patients aged 2 months to 61 years. The sensitivity and specificity of the BreatH2 analyser in detecting a positive BHT using the Quintron microlyser as the gold standard were 0.90 and 0.95 with positive and negative predictive values of 0.90 and 0.95, respectively. There was one false positive and one false negative reading. Bland-Altman plots showed a high degree of agreement between the values obtained with two different methods.
CONCLUSIONS: The diagnosis of carbohydrate malabsorption, using a portable breath H2 analyser (BreatH2), achieved an acceptable degree of sensitivity and specificity, enabling it to be used where no alternative is available.
OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the relative sensitivity for HPV detection of self-collection compared with practitioner-collected cervical specimens in the context of the Australian National Cervical Screening Program (NCSP).
STUDY DESIGN: 303 women aged ≥18 years attending a single tertiary referral centre took their own sample using a flocked-swab, and then had a practitioner-collected sample taken at colposcopy. All samples were tested at a single laboratory on the six PCR-based HPV assays which can be utilised in the NCSP; Roche cobas 4800 and cobas, Abbott RealTime, BD Onclarity, Cepheid Xpert, and Seegene Anyplex.
RESULTS: HPV16/18 results had high observed agreement between self- and practitioner-collected samples on all assays (range: 0.94-0.99), with good agreement for non-HPV16/18 oncogenic HPV types (range: 0.64-0.73).
CONCLUSIONS: Self-collection for HPV-based cervical screening shows good concordance and relative sensitivity when compared to practitionercollected samples across assays in the NCSP.
METHODOLOGY: Sixty-seven laboratory Salmonella enterica strains were tested. Six sets of primers targeting defined regions of the O antigen synthesis genes (rfb gene cluster) and Vi antigen gene (viaB) were selected and combined into a multiplex PCR for O-grouping. Four primers (H-for, Ha-rev, Hb-rev and Hd-rev) were used in the second step multiplex PCR for H-typing. The optimized mPCR assays were further evaluated with 58 blind-coded Salmonella strains.
RESULTS: The multiplex PCR results obtained showed 100% concordance to the conventionally typed serogroups. Validation with 58 blind coded Salmonella strains yield 100% accuracy and specificity.
CONCLUSION: Based on this study, PCR serogrouping proved to be a rapid, alternative method for further differentiation of Salmonella enterica.