Literature DB >> 22095439

Benefits of the quality assured double and arbitration reading of mammograms in the early diagnosis of breast cancer in symptomatic women.

Annika Waldmann1, Smaragda Kapsimalakou, Alexander Katalinic, Isabell Grande-Nagel, Beate M Stoeckelhuber, Dorothea Fischer, Joerg Barkhausen, Florian M Vogt.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To address the benefits of double and arbitration reading regarding tumour detection rates, percentage of in situ tumours, and number (of patients) needed to send for expert reading (number needed to treat; NNT) for one additional tumour finding.
METHODS: QuaMaDi is a quality assured breast cancer diagnosis programme; with two-view mammography (craniocaudal, mediolateral oblique) and, in case of breast density ACR 3 or 4, routine ultrasound imaging; and with independent double reading of all images. A consecutive sample of symptomatic women, i.e. women at risk for breast cancer, women aged 70 and above, and/or women with preceding BI-RADS III findings, was analysed.
RESULTS: 28,558 mammograms were performed (mean age of women: 57.3 [standard deviation: 12.3] years). Discordant findings were present in 3,837 double readings and were sent for arbitration reading. After histopathological assessment, 52 carcinomas were found (thereof 32% in situ). These carcinomas accounted for 1.8 tumours per 1,000 examinations in the total cohort and increased the tumour detection rate up to 16.4/1,000. The NNT in discordant cases was 74.
CONCLUSION: Double and arbitration reading appears to be a useful tool to ensure the quality of early detection of breast lesions in symptomatic women during indication-based, standardised mammography. KEY POINTS: • Quality assured breast cancer diagnosis is feasible outside organised screening structures. • Double and arbitration reading is beneficial for populations ineligible for screening. • Double and arbitration reading increases the tumour detection rate. • Double and arbitration reading increases the percentage of in situ cancers.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22095439     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-011-2334-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  22 in total

1.  Comparing the performance of mammography screening in the USA and the UK.

Authors:  Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Diana L Miglioretti; Julietta Patnick; Karla Kerlikowske
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 2.136

2.  Double reading of mammography screening films--one radiologist or two?

Authors:  I Anttinen; M Pamilo; M Soiva; M Roiha
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  1993-12       Impact factor: 2.350

3.  Mammography screening. One versus two views and independent double reading.

Authors:  E Thurfjell
Journal:  Acta Radiol       Date:  1994-07       Impact factor: 1.990

4.  What are the issues in the double reading of mammograms?

Authors:  C A Beam; D C Sullivan
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1994-11       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  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

6.  Screening-detected breast cancers: discordant independent double reading in a population-based screening program.

Authors:  Solveig Hofvind; Berta M Geller; Robert D Rosenberg; Per Skaane
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2009-09-29       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Clinical outcome assessment in mammography: an audit of 7,506 screening and diagnostic mammography examinations.

Authors:  Işil Tunçbilek; Ayşegül Ozdemir; Serap Gültekin; Törel Oğur; Rabia Erman; Cemal Yüce
Journal:  Diagn Interv Radiol       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 2.630

8.  Using the European guidelines to evaluate the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program.

Authors:  Solveig Hofvind; Berta Geller; Pamela M Vacek; Steinar Thoresen; Per Skaane
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2007-06-27       Impact factor: 8.082

9.  Influence of additional breast ultrasound on cancer detection in a cohort study for quality assurance in breast diagnosis--analysis of 102,577 diagnostic procedures.

Authors:  Fritz K W Schaefer; A Waldmann; A Katalinic; C Wefelnberg; M Heller; W Jonat; I Schreer
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2009-11-05       Impact factor: 5.315

10.  Cumulative attendance, assessment and cancer detection rate over four screening rounds in five English breast-screening programmes: a retrospective study.

Authors:  Matthew Wallis; Fergus Neilson; Helen Hogarth; Caroline Whitaker; Keith Faulkner
Journal:  J Public Health (Oxf)       Date:  2007-05-22       Impact factor: 2.341

View more
  1 in total

1.  Interreader scoring variability in an observer study using dual-modality imaging for breast cancer detection in women with dense breasts.

Authors:  Karen Drukker; Karla J Horsch; Lorenzo L Pesce; Maryellen L Giger
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2013-04-17       Impact factor: 3.173

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.