AIM: To examine the performance of screening units in which a proportion of mammograms were double read using "non-discordant radiographer only (double) reading" (NDROR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: NDROR was used by seven pilot units between 2006 and 2009, and six further units in 2009 only. There were 51 comparison units. Screening performance outcome measures were calculated, and logistic regression was used to compare performance between the pilot and comparison units. RESULTS: Phase 1 pilot units read between on average 15 and 48% of mammograms per year using NDROR between 2006 and 2009 (median, 33%) and in 2009, phase 2 pilot units used NDROR to read between 4 and 77% of mammograms (median, 34%). The results showed an increase in recall rates in the phase 1 pilot units relative to the comparison units at both prevalent and incident screens (adjusted OR 1.09, 95% CI 1.05, 1.14; and adjusted OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.07, 1.14, respectively). There were also increases in the phase 2 pilot units relative to the comparison units; adjusted OR 1.08 (95% 1.00, 1.17) at prevalent screens, and adjusted OR 1.07 (95% CI 1.02, 1.14) at incident screens. There was no evidence to suggest a difference in cancer-detection rates between the pilot units and the comparison units. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from the present study suggests that recall rates may increase as a result of units using radiographers to double read a proportion of their mammograms. However, there is little evidence to suggest that NDROR, as practiced by the pilot units in the present study, is likely to have major impacts on performance in the UK National Health Service Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP), particularly if it is fully supported and closely monitored (particularly recall rates).
AIM: To examine the performance of screening units in which a proportion of mammograms were double read using "non-discordant radiographer only (double) reading" (NDROR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: NDROR was used by seven pilot units between 2006 and 2009, and six further units in 2009 only. There were 51 comparison units. Screening performance outcome measures were calculated, and logistic regression was used to compare performance between the pilot and comparison units. RESULTS: Phase 1 pilot units read between on average 15 and 48% of mammograms per year using NDROR between 2006 and 2009 (median, 33%) and in 2009, phase 2 pilot units used NDROR to read between 4 and 77% of mammograms (median, 34%). The results showed an increase in recall rates in the phase 1 pilot units relative to the comparison units at both prevalent and incident screens (adjusted OR 1.09, 95% CI 1.05, 1.14; and adjusted OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.07, 1.14, respectively). There were also increases in the phase 2 pilot units relative to the comparison units; adjusted OR 1.08 (95% 1.00, 1.17) at prevalent screens, and adjusted OR 1.07 (95% CI 1.02, 1.14) at incident screens. There was no evidence to suggest a difference in cancer-detection rates between the pilot units and the comparison units. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from the present study suggests that recall rates may increase as a result of units using radiographers to double read a proportion of their mammograms. However, there is little evidence to suggest that NDROR, as practiced by the pilot units in the present study, is likely to have major impacts on performance in the UK National Health Service Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP), particularly if it is fully supported and closely monitored (particularly recall rates).
Authors: Arjun Nair; Natalie Gartland; Bruce Barton; Diane Jones; Leigh Clements; Nicholas J Screaton; John A Holemans; Stephen W Duffy; John K Field; David R Baldwin; David M Hansell; Anand Devaraj Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2016-07-27 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Lyn I Jones; Rebecca Geach; Sam A Harding; Christopher Foy; Victoria Taylor; Andrea Marshall; Sian Taylor-Phillips; Janet A Dunn Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2019-10-03 Impact factor: 3.039
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
Authors: My von Euler-Chelpin; Martin Lillholm; George Napolitano; Ilse Vejborg; Mads Nielsen; Elsebeth Lynge Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2018-07-04 Impact factor: 4.872