Peripheral nerve injuries can result in lifelong disability. Primary coaptation is the treatment of choice when the gap between transected nerve ends is short. Long nerve gaps seen in more complex injuries often require autologous nerve grafts or nerve conduits implemented into the repair. Nerve grafts, however, cause morbidity and functional loss at donor sites, which are limited in number. Nerve conduits, in turn, lack an internal scaffold to support and guide axonal regeneration, resulting in decreased efficacy over longer nerve gap lengths. By comparison, peptide amphiphiles (PAs) are molecules that can self-assemble into nanofibers, which can be aligned to mimic the native architecture of peripheral nerve. As such, they represent a potential substrate for use in a bioengineered nerve graft substitute. To examine this, we cultured Schwann cells with bioactive PAs (RGDS-PA, IKVAV-PA) to determine their ability to attach to and proliferate within the biomaterial. Next, we devised a PA construct for use in a peripheral nerve critical sized defect model. Rat sciatic nerve defects were created and reconstructed with autologous nerve, PLGA conduits filled with various forms of aligned PAs, or left unrepaired. Motor and sensory recovery were determined and compared among groups. Our results demonstrate that Schwann cells are able to adhere to and proliferate in aligned PA gels, with greater efficacy in bioactive PAs compared to the backbone-PA alone. In vivo testing revealed recovery of motor and sensory function in animals treated with conduit/PA constructs comparable to animals treated with autologous nerve grafts. Functional recovery in conduit/PA and autologous graft groups was significantly faster than in animals treated with empty PLGA conduits. Histological examinations also demonstrated increased axonal and Schwann cell regeneration within the reconstructed nerve gap in animals treated with conduit/PA constructs. These results indicate that PA nanofibers may represent a promising biomaterial for use in bioengineered peripheral nerve repair.

Background

Reactions to uncertainty in clinical medicine can affect decision making.

Objective

To assess the extent to which radiologists' reactions to uncertainty influence diagnostic mammography interpretation.

Design

Cross-sectional responses to a mailed survey assessed reactions to uncertainty using a well-validated instrument. Responses were linked to radiologists' diagnostic mammography interpretive performance obtained from three regional mammography registries.

Participants

One hundred thirty-two radiologists from New Hampshire, Colorado, and Washington.

Measurement

Mean scores and either standard errors or confidence intervals were used to assess physicians' reactions to uncertainty. Multivariable logistic regression models were fit via generalized estimating equations to assess the impact of uncertainty on diagnostic mammography interpretive performance while adjusting for potential confounders.

Results

When examining radiologists' interpretation of additional diagnostic mammograms (those after screening mammograms that detected abnormalities), a 5-point increase in the reactions to uncertainty score was associated with a 17% higher odds of having a positive mammogram given cancer was diagnosed during follow-up (sensitivity), a 6% lower odds of a negative mammogram given no cancer (specificity), a 4% lower odds (not significant) of a cancer diagnosis given a positive mammogram (positive predictive value [PPV]), and a 5% higher odds of having a positive mammogram (abnormal interpretation).

Conclusion

Mammograms interpreted by radiologists who have more discomfort with uncertainty have higher likelihood of being recalled.

Background

Although interpretive performance varies substantially among radiologists, such variation has not been examined among mammography facilities. Understanding sources of facility variation could become a foundation for improving interpretive performance.

Methods

In this cross-sectional study conducted between 1996 and 2002, we surveyed 53 facilities to evaluate associations between facility structure, interpretive process characteristics, and interpretive performance of screening mammography (ie, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value [PPV1], and the likelihood of cancer among women who were referred for biopsy [PPV2]). Measures of interpretive performance were ascertained prospectively from mammography interpretations and cancer data collected by the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses estimated the association between facility characteristics and mammography interpretive performance or accuracy (area under the ROC curve [AUC]). All P values were two-sided.

Results

Of the 53 eligible facilities, data on 44 could be analyzed. These 44 facilities accounted for 484 463 screening mammograms performed on 237 669 women, of whom 2686 were diagnosed with breast cancer during follow-up. Among the 44 facilities, mean sensitivity was 79.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 74.3% to 84.9%), mean specificity was 90.2% (95% CI = 88.3% to 92.0%), mean PPV1 was 4.1% (95% CI = 3.5% to 4.7%), and mean PPV2 was 38.8% (95% CI = 32.6% to 45.0%). The facilities varied statistically significantly in specificity (P < .001), PPV1 (P < .001), and PPV2 (P = .002) but not in sensitivity (P = .99). AUC was higher among facilities that offered screening mammograms alone vs those that offered screening and diagnostic mammograms (0.943 vs 0.911, P = .006), had a breast imaging specialist interpreting mammograms vs not (0.932 vs 0.905, P = .004), did not perform double reading vs independent double reading vs consensus double reading (0.925 vs 0.915 vs 0.887, P = .034), or conducted audit reviews two or more times per year vs annually vs at an unknown frequency (0.929 vs 0.904 vs 0.900, P = .018).

Conclusion

Mammography interpretive performance varies statistically significantly by facility.