Literature DB >> 12704069

Increase in cancer detection and recall rates with independent double interpretation of screening mammography.

Susan C Harvey1, Berta Geller, Robert G Oppenheimer, Melanie Pinet, Leslie Riddell, Brian Garra.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This study reports the increase in cancer detection that resulted from independent double interpretation of screening mammography. Although screening mammography is used to detect occult breast cancer, its sensitivity and specificity are limited. Double interpretation of screening mammograms is one proven method used to improve detection, with studies reporting a 5-15% increase in cancer detection.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two radiologists independently double-interpreted 25,369 screening mammograms performed from November 1998 to April 2000. The second reviewer could add but could not delete recalls. The subsequent additional diagnostic imaging was performed in the same way whether generated from the first or the second reviewer. The outcome of each case was determined. The cancer detection rate and sensitivity are reported.
RESULTS: Double interpretation of screening mammograms detected 143 breast malignancies. The second reviewer found nine (6.3%) of 143 cancers and all except one were stage 0 or I. The sensitivity increased from 74.4% to 79.4% with double interpretation. The second reviewer contributed 371 of the 3591 total recalls, increasing the absolute rate of recalls by 1.5% (371/25,369) and the relative rate by 11.5% (371/3220). Six hundred seventy-two total biopsies were performed; 38 were generated by the second interpretation.
CONCLUSION: The relative increase in cancer detection as a result of the second reviewer is 6.3%, similar to the 5-15% reported in the literature. All but one of the nine additional cancers detected were in the early stages.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12704069     DOI: 10.2214/ajr.180.5.1801461

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  23 in total

1.  Benefits of double reading of screening mammograms: retrospective study on a consecutive series.

Authors:  F Caumo; S Brunelli; M Zorzi; I Baglio; S Ciatto; S Montemezzi
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2011-03-07       Impact factor: 3.469

2.  Community-based mammography practice: services, charges, and interpretation methods.

Authors:  R Edward Hendrick; Gary R Cutter; Eric A Berns; Connie Nakano; Joseph Egger; Patricia A Carney; Linn Abraham; Stephen H Taplin; Carl J D'Orsi; William Barlow; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 3.  Technical aspects of breast MRI--do they affect outcomes?

Authors:  Ruth Warren; Stefano Ciatto; Petra Macaskill; Richard Black; Nehmat Houssami
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2009-02-27       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Discrepant screening mammography assessments at blinded and non-blinded double reading: impact of arbitration by a third reader on screening outcome.

Authors:  Elisabeth G Klompenhouwer; Adri C Voogd; Gerard J den Heeten; Luc J A Strobbe; Vivianne C Tjan-Heijnen; Mireille J M Broeders; Lucien E M Duijm
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-04-18       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  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

6.  Performance of 4 years of population-based mammography screening for breast cancer combined with ultrasound in Tyrol / Austria.

Authors:  Sabine Geiger-Gritsch; Martin Daniaux; Wolfgang Buchberger; Rudolf Knapp; Willi Oberaigner
Journal:  Wien Klin Wochenschr       Date:  2017-12-05       Impact factor: 1.704

Review 7.  Double reading in breast cancer screening: considerations for policy-making.

Authors:  Sian Taylor-Phillips; Chris Stinton
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2019-10-23       Impact factor: 3.039

8.  Comparing screening mammography for early breast cancer detection in Vermont and Norway.

Authors:  Solveig Hofvind; Pamela M Vacek; Joan Skelly; Donald L Weaver; Berta M Geller
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2008-07-29       Impact factor: 13.506

9.  "CADEAT": considerations on the use of CAD (computer-aided diagnosis) in mammography.

Authors:  R Chersevani; S Ciatto; C Del Favero; A Frigerio; L Giordano; G Giuseppetti; C Naldoni; P Panizza; M Petrella; G Saguatti
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2010-01-15       Impact factor: 3.469

10.  Second opinion in breast pathology: policy, practice and perception.

Authors:  Berta M Geller; Heidi D Nelson; Patricia A Carney; Donald L Weaver; Tracy Onega; Kimberly H Allison; Paul D Frederick; Anna N A Tosteson; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2014-07-22       Impact factor: 3.411

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.