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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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