Literature DB >> 10228538

Medical radiologic technologist review: effects on a population-based breast cancer screening program.

J M Tonita1, J P Hillis, C H Lim.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effects of medical radiologic technologist review of mammograms in a population-based breast cancer screening program.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A technologist review pilot project was incorporated into the Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada, reading center. Technologists received special training in mammographic interpretation. They reviewed all 27,863 mammograms obtained at the center from July 1995 to September 1996 that were reviewed by a radiologist and selected cases for second blind reading by another radiologist. When the two radiologists' readings were in agreement, the report was sent. When the readings differed, a third opinion was obtained from the program's consulting radiologist. Changes in the number of mammograms interpreted as abnormal and the number of cancers detected were assessed.
RESULTS: The technologist review was responsible for the detection of nine cancers missed at the first radiologist's interpretation. Technologists were very discriminating; only 391 cases (1.4%) were sent for double reading. The positive predictive value of screening did not change significantly (7.5% without review, 8.1% with review; P > .20).
CONCLUSION: A substantial number of cancers were found with the technologist review. The number of mammograms interpreted as abnormal was reduced slightly. The technologist review proved to be a cost-effective alternative to double reading by two radiologists.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10228538     DOI: 10.1148/radiology.211.2.r99ma32529

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  9 in total

1.  Comparison of sensitivity of lung nodule detection between radiologists and technologists on low-dose CT lung cancer screening images.

Authors:  R Kakinuma; K Ashizawa; T Kobayashi; A Fukushima; H Hayashi; T Kondo; M Machida; M Matsusako; K Minami; K Oikado; M Okuda; S Takamatsu; M Sugawara; S Gomi; Y Muramatsu; K Hanai; Y Muramatsu; M Kaneko; R Tsuchiya; N Moriyama
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  Variations in screening outcome among pairs of screening radiologists at non-blinded double reading of screening mammograms: a population-based study.

Authors:  E G Klompenhouwer; L E M Duijm; A C Voogd; G J den Heeten; J Nederend; F H Jansen; M J M Broeders
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2014-02-06       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  The influence of mammographic technologists on radiologists' ability to interpret screening mammograms in community practice.

Authors:  Louise M Henderson; Thad Benefield; Mary W Marsh; Bruce F Schroeder; Danielle D Durham; Bonnie C Yankaskas; J Michael Bowling
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2014-11-27       Impact factor: 3.173

4.  Performance of screening mammography in organized programs in Canada in 1996. The Database Management Subcommittee to the National Committee for the Canadian Breast Cancer Screening Initiative.

Authors:  D Paquette; J Snider; F Bouchard; I Olivotto; H Bryant; K Decker; G Doyle
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2000-10-31       Impact factor: 8.262

5.  A multisite telemammography system for remote management of screening mammography: an assessment of technical, operational, and clinical issues.

Authors:  Joseph K Leader; Christiane M Hakim; Marie A Ganott; Denise M Chough; Luisa P Wallace; Ronald J Clearfield; Ronald L Perrin; John M Drescher; Glenn S Maitz; Jules H Sumkin; David Gur
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 4.056

6.  Radiographers supporting radiologists in the interpretation of screening mammography: a viable strategy to meet the shortage in the number of radiologists.

Authors:  Gabriela Torres-Mejía; Robert A Smith; María de la Luz Carranza-Flores; Andy Bogart; Louis Martínez-Matsushita; Diana L Miglioretti; Karla Kerlikowske; Carolina Ortega-Olvera; Ernesto Montemayor-Varela; Angélica Angeles-Llerenas; Sergio Bautista-Arredondo; Gilberto Sánchez-González; Olga G Martínez-Montañez; Santos R Uscanga-Sánchez; Eduardo Lazcano-Ponce; Mauricio Hernández-Ávila
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2015-05-16       Impact factor: 4.430

7.  Inter-observer variability in mammography screening and effect of type and number of readers on screening outcome.

Authors:  L E M Duijm; M W J Louwman; J H Groenewoud; L V van de Poll-Franse; J Fracheboud; J W Coebergh
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2009-03-03       Impact factor: 7.640

8.  Evaluating radiographers' diagnostic accuracy in screen-reading mammograms: what constitutes a quality study?

Authors:  Josephine C Debono; Ann E Poulos
Journal:  J Med Radiat Sci       Date:  2014-08-14

9.  Evaluation of radiographers' mammography screen-reading accuracy in Australia.

Authors:  Josephine C Debono; Ann E Poulos; Nehmat Houssami; Robin M Turner; John Boyages
Journal:  J Med Radiat Sci       Date:  2014-08-06
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.