Literature DB >> 16120936

The use of batch reading to improve the performance of screening mammography.

Elizabeth S Burnside1, Jeong Mi Park, Jason P Fine, Gale A Sisney.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to prove that batch reading of screening mammograms can reduce recall rates without sacrificing cancer detection.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed recall rate, cancer detection, minimal cancer detection, detection of low-stage cancer, and tumor size from consecutive screening mammography examinations from October 2001 to July 2003. The initial 7,984 mammograms were interpreted in the midst of a busy breast imaging practice. Although these studies were not read online, the interpretations were often interrupted for telephone calls, procedures, and diagnostic mammograms. The remaining 1,538 studies were interpreted after the institution of dedicated uninterrupted batch reading.
RESULTS: Recall rates were 20.1% before and 16.2% after the introduction of batch reading (p < 0.001). Cancer detection rates were not significantly different: 5.6 cancers were detected per 1,000 examinations without and 7.2 were detected per 1,000 with batch reading. Prognostic factors for breast cancers diagnosed between these groups also were not significantly different. Of the screening-detected cancers diagnosed before batch reading, minimal cancers comprised 67% and low-stage cancers accounted for 76%. Of the cancers diagnosed using batch reading, 73% were minimal and 91% were low stage. The mean size of cancers, 11.7 mm without batch reading and 9.1 mm with batch reading, also showed no statistically significant difference.
CONCLUSION: Our experience shows that batch reading can significantly reduce screening mammography recall rates without affecting the cancer detection rate or the proportion of cancers diagnosed with favorable prognostic indicators.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16120936     DOI: 10.2214/ajr.185.3.01850790

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


  8 in total

Review 1.  Systematic review: bias in imaging studies - the effect of manipulating clinical context, recall bias and reporting intensity.

Authors:  Darren Boone; Steve Halligan; Susan Mallett; Stuart A Taylor; Douglas G Altman
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2011-09-30       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Adaptation and visual search in mammographic images.

Authors:  Elysse Kompaniez-Dunigan; Craig K Abbey; John M Boone; Michael A Webster
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2015-05       Impact factor: 2.199

Review 3.  [Workflow in digital screening mammography].

Authors:  U Bick; F Diekmann; E M Fallenberg
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 0.635

4.  Communication Practices of Mammography Facilities and Timely Follow-up of a Screening Mammogram with a BI-RADS 0 Assessment.

Authors:  Marilyn M Schapira; William E Barlow; Emily F Conant; Brian L Sprague; Anna N A Tosteson; Jennifer S Haas; Tracy Onega; Elisabeth F Beaber; Martha Goodrich; Anne Marie McCarthy; Sally D Herschorn; Celette Sugg Skinner; Tory O Harrington; Berta Geller
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2018-02-09       Impact factor: 3.173

5.  Association between Screening Mammography Recall Rate and Interval Cancers in the UK Breast Cancer Service Screening Program: A Cohort Study.

Authors:  Elizabeth S Burnside; Daniel Vulkan; Roger G Blanks; Stephen W Duffy
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2018-04-03       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Persistent inter-observer variability of breast density assessment using BI-RADS® 5th edition guidelines.

Authors:  Leah H Portnow; Dianne Georgian-Smith; Irfanullah Haider; Mirelys Barrios; Camden P Bay; Kerrie P Nelson; Sughra Raza
Journal:  Clin Imaging       Date:  2021-12-10       Impact factor: 1.605

Review 7.  Fatigue in radiology: a fertile area for future research.

Authors:  Sian Taylor-Phillips; Chris Stinton
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2019-05-14       Impact factor: 3.039

8.  Does it matter for the radiologists' performance whether they read short or long batches in organized mammographic screening?

Authors:  Heinrich A Backmann; Marthe Larsen; Anders S Danielsen; Solveig Hofvind
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2021-06-10       Impact factor: 5.315

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.