Sian Taylor-Phillips1, Matthew G Wallis2, David Jenkinson1, Victor Adekanmbi1, Helen Parsons1, Janet Dunn1, Nigel Stallard1, Ala Szczepura1, Simon Gates1, Olive Kearins3, Alison Duncan4, Sue Hudson5, Aileen Clarke1. 1. Warwick Medical School, the University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom. 2. Cambridge Breast Unit, Cambridge Universities NHS Foundation Trust and NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, United Kingdom. 3. Screening QA Service (Midland & East), Seaton House, City Link, Nottingham, United Kingdom. 4. Warwickshire, Solihull and Coventry Breast Screening Service, University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire, Coventry, United Kingdom. 5. Peel & Schriek Consulting Limited, London, United Kingdom.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Interpreting screening mammograms is a difficult repetitive task that can result in missed cancers and false-positive recalls. In the United Kingdom, 2 film readers independently evaluate each mammogram to search for signs of cancer and examine digital mammograms in batches. However, a vigilance decrement (reduced detection rate with time on task) has been observed in similar settings. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of changing the order for the second film reader of batches of screening mammograms on rates of breast cancer detection. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A multicenter, double-blind, cluster randomized clinical trial conducted at 46 specialized breast screening centers from the National Health Service Breast Screening Program in England for 1 year (all between December 20, 2012, and November 3, 2014). Three hundred sixty readers participated (mean, 7.8 readers per center)-186 radiologists, 143 radiography advanced practitioners, and 31 breast clinicians, all fully qualified to report mammograms in the NHS breast screening program. INTERVENTIONS: The 2 readers examined each batch of digital mammograms in the same order in the control group and in the opposite order to one another in the intervention group. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was cancer detection rate; secondary outcomes were rates of recall and disagreements between readers. RESULTS: Among 1,194,147 women (mean age, 59.3; SD, 7.49) who had screening mammograms (596,642 in the intervention group; 597,505 in the control group), the images were interpreted in 37,688 batches (median batch size, 35; interquartile range [IQR]; 16-46), with each reader interpreting a median of 176 batches (IQR, 96-278). After completion of all subsequent diagnostic tests, a total of 10,484 cases (0.88%) of breast cancer were detected. There was no significant difference in cancer detection rate with 5272 cancers (0.88%) detected in the intervention group vs 5212 cancers (0.87%) detected in the control group (difference, 0.01% points; 95% CI, -0.02% to 0.04% points; recall rate, 24,681 [4.14%] vs 24,894 [4.17%]; difference, -0.03% points; 95% CI, -0.10% to 0.04% points; or rate of reader disagreements, 20,471 [3.43%] vs 20,793 [3.48%]; difference, -0.05% points; 95% CI, -0.11% to 0.02% points). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Interpretation of batches of mammograms by qualified screening mammography readers using a different order vs the same order for the second reading resulted in no significant difference in rates of detection of breast cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN46603370.
RCT Entities:
IMPORTANCE: Interpreting screening mammograms is a difficult repetitive task that can result in missed cancers and false-positive recalls. In the United Kingdom, 2 film readers independently evaluate each mammogram to search for signs of cancer and examine digital mammograms in batches. However, a vigilance decrement (reduced detection rate with time on task) has been observed in similar settings. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of changing the order for the second film reader of batches of screening mammograms on rates of breast cancer detection. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A multicenter, double-blind, cluster randomized clinical trial conducted at 46 specialized breast screening centers from the National Health Service Breast Screening Program in England for 1 year (all between December 20, 2012, and November 3, 2014). Three hundred sixty readers participated (mean, 7.8 readers per center)-186 radiologists, 143 radiography advanced practitioners, and 31 breast clinicians, all fully qualified to report mammograms in the NHS breast screening program. INTERVENTIONS: The 2 readers examined each batch of digital mammograms in the same order in the control group and in the opposite order to one another in the intervention group. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was cancer detection rate; secondary outcomes were rates of recall and disagreements between readers. RESULTS: Among 1,194,147 women (mean age, 59.3; SD, 7.49) who had screening mammograms (596,642 in the intervention group; 597,505 in the control group), the images were interpreted in 37,688 batches (median batch size, 35; interquartile range [IQR]; 16-46), with each reader interpreting a median of 176 batches (IQR, 96-278). After completion of all subsequent diagnostic tests, a total of 10,484 cases (0.88%) of breast cancer were detected. There was no significant difference in cancer detection rate with 5272 cancers (0.88%) detected in the intervention group vs 5212 cancers (0.87%) detected in the control group (difference, 0.01% points; 95% CI, -0.02% to 0.04% points; recall rate, 24,681 [4.14%] vs 24,894 [4.17%]; difference, -0.03% points; 95% CI, -0.10% to 0.04% points; or rate of reader disagreements, 20,471 [3.43%] vs 20,793 [3.48%]; difference, -0.05% points; 95% CI, -0.11% to 0.02% points). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Interpretation of batches of mammograms by qualified screening mammography readers using a different order vs the same order for the second reading resulted in no significant difference in rates of detection of breast cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN46603370.
Authors: Patrick C Brennan; Aarthi Ganesan; Miguel P Eckstein; Ernest Usang Ekpo; Kriscia Tapia; Claudia Mello-Thoms; Sarah Lewis; Mordechai Z Juni Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2018-07-29 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Ioannis Sechopoulos; Craig K Abbey; Daniëlle van der Waal; Tanya Geertse; Eric Tetteroo; Ruud M Pijnappel; Mireille J M Broeders Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2022-04-28 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Abdulaziz S Alshabibi; Moayyad E Suleiman; Salman M Albeshan; Robert Heard; Patrick C Brennan Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2021-11-04 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Sian Taylor-Phillips; David Jenkinson; Chris Stinton; Matthew G Wallis; Janet Dunn; Aileen Clarke Journal: Radiology Date: 2018-04-10 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Nick Woznitza; Anand Devaraj; Samuel M Janes; Stephen W Duffy; Angshu Bhowmik; Susan Rowe; Keith Piper; Sue Maughn; David R Baldwin Journal: Trials Date: 2017-11-06 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Jennifer A Cooper; David Jenkinson; Chris Stinton; Matthew G Wallis; Sue Hudson; Sian Taylor-Phillips Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2021-06-12 Impact factor: 5.315