Literature DB >> 21424314

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

F Caumo1, S Brunelli, M Zorzi, I Baglio, S Ciatto, S Montemezzi.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the performance of delayed second reading of screening mammograms when added to real-time reading plus immediate assessment.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study setting was the mammography screening programme of an Italian Local Health Unit. Recall rate and cancer detection rate at first reading or informed second reading only were assessed in a cohort of 23,629 women aged 50-69 years screened during 2007-2008. Incremental recall rate, incremental cancer detection rate and incremental cost of second reading were determined.
RESULTS: Recall rate was 13.0% at first and 2.7% at second reading (incremental recall rate +21.1%). Overall, recalls were more frequent in the younger decade and in the presence of denser breasts. Cancer detection rate was 7.06‰ (n=167) at first and 0.93‰ (n=22) at second reading (incremental cancer detection rate +13.1%). Compared with first reading, second reading detected more cancers depicted as isolated microcalcifications and distortions (40.9% vs. 16.2%, p=0.02) and at a lower stage (stage 0-I 81.8% vs. 69.5%, p=0.34). The cost of adding delayed second reading was + <euro> 3.65 per screened individual or <euro> 3,926.61 per incremental cancer detected.
CONCLUSIONS: The study confirms the efficacy of second reading, even as an adjunct to real-time single reading plus immediate assessment. Incremental recall rate is acceptable in view of the incremental cancer detection rate, and both figures are within the range of literature reports on double-reading performance.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21424314     DOI: 10.1007/s11547-011-0656-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiol Med        ISSN: 0033-8362            Impact factor:   3.469


  13 in total

1.  A methodology to evaluate differential costs of full field digital as compared to conventional screen film mammography in a clinical setting.

Authors:  S Ciatto; B Brancato; R Baglioni; M Turci
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2005-09-23       Impact factor: 3.528

2.  Effect of recall rate on earlier screen detection of breast cancers based on the Dutch performance indicators.

Authors:  Johannes D M Otten; Nico Karssemeijer; Jan H C L Hendriks; Johanna H Groenewoud; Jacques Fracheboud; André L M Verbeek; Harry J de Koning; Roland Holland
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2005-05-18       Impact factor: 13.506

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

Authors:  Susan C Harvey; Berta Geller; Robert G Oppenheimer; Melanie Pinet; Leslie Riddell; Brian Garra
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 3.959

4.  Second reading of screening mammograms increases cancer detection and recall rates. Results in the Florence screening programme.

Authors:  S Ciatto; D Ambrogetti; R Bonardi; S Catarzi; G Risso; M Rosselli Del Turco; P Mantellini
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 2.136

5.  Comparison of screening mammography in the United States and the United kingdom.

Authors:  Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Philip W Chu; Diana L Miglioretti; Edward A Sickles; Roger Blanks; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Janet K Bobo; Nancy C Lee; Matthew G Wallis; Julietta Patnick; Karla Kerlikowske
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2003-10-22       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  Real-time reading in mammography breast screening.

Authors:  R Mariotto; B Brancato; F Bonetti; E Manfrin; M Strabbioli; A Mercanti; F Falsirollo; P Bricolo; G F Pistolesi
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2007-03-19       Impact factor: 3.469

7.  Evidence-based target recall rates for screening mammography.

Authors:  Michael J Schell; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Bahjat F Qaqish; William E Barlow; Robert D Rosenberg; Rebecca Smith-Bindman
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Benefit of independent double reading in a population-based mammography screening program.

Authors:  E L Thurfjell; K A Lernevall; A A Taube
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1994-04       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  Analysis of interval cancers observed in an Italian mammography screening programme (2000-2006).

Authors:  F Caumo; F Vecchiato; M Pellegrini; M Vettorazzi; S Ciatto; S Montemezzi
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2009-06-23       Impact factor: 3.469

10.  Quality control of mammography screening in the Veneto Region. Evaluation of four programs at a local health unit level--analysis of the frequency and diagnostic pattern of interval cancers.

Authors:  Marcello Vettorazzi; Carmen Stocco; Antonino Chirico; Silvia Recanatini; Stefania Saccon; Renata Mariotto; Sandro Cinquetti; Tina Moretto; Paolo Sartori; Anna Stomeo; Stefano Ciatto
Journal:  Tumori       Date:  2006 Jan-Feb
View more
  4 in total

1.  Interobserver agreement in breast radiological density attribution according to BI-RADS quantitative classification.

Authors:  D Bernardi; M Pellegrini; S Di Michele; P Tuttobene; C Fantò; M Valentini; M Gentilini; S Ciatto
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2012-01-07       Impact factor: 3.469

2.  Repeat Breast Ultrasound Demonstrates Utility with Added Cancer Detection in Patients following Breast Imaging Second Opinion Recommendations.

Authors:  R Jared Weinfurtner; Melissa Anne Mallory; Dayana Bermudez
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  2022-01-31       Impact factor: 2.269

3.  Under-exploration of Three-Dimensional Images Leads to Search Errors for Small Salient Targets.

Authors:  Miguel A Lago; Aditya Jonnalagadda; Craig K Abbey; Bruno B Barufaldi; Predrag R Bakic; Andrew D A Maidment; Winifred K Leung; Susan P Weinstein; Brian S Englander; Miguel P Eckstein
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2021-01-19       Impact factor: 10.834

4.  Performance of double reading mammography in an Iranian population and its effect on patient outcome.

Authors:  Maryam Moradi; Kobra Ganji; Niloufar Teyfouri; Farzaneh Kolahdoozan
Journal:  Iran J Radiol       Date:  2013-05-20       Impact factor: 0.212

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.