Literature DB >> 31617741

Double reading in breast cancer screening: considerations for policy-making.

Sian Taylor-Phillips1, Chris Stinton1.   

Abstract

In this article, we explore the evidence around the relative benefits and harms of breast cancer screening using a single radiologist to examine each female's mammograms for signs of cancer (single reading), or two radiologists (double reading). First, we briefly explore the historical evidence using film-screen mammography, before providing an in-depth description of evidence using digital mammography. We classify studies according to which exact version of double reading they use, because the evidence suggests that effectiveness of double reading is contingent on whether the two radiologists are blinded to one another's decisions, and how the decisions of the two radiologists are integrated. Finally, we explore the implications for future mammography, including using artificial intelligence as the second reader, and applications to more complex three-dimensional imaging techniques such as tomosynthesis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31617741      PMCID: PMC7055445          DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20190610

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Radiol        ISSN: 0007-1285            Impact factor:   3.039


  41 in total

1.  Quantifying the potential problem of overdiagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ in breast cancer screening.

Authors:  M-F Yen; L Tabár; B Vitak; R A Smith; H-H Chen; S W Duffy
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 9.162

2.  Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer.

Authors:  Norman F Boyd; Helen Guo; Lisa J Martin; Limei Sun; Jennifer Stone; Eve Fishell; Roberta A Jong; Greg Hislop; Anna Chiarelli; Salomon Minkin; Martin J Yaffe
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2007-01-18       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST.

Authors:  Etta D Pisano; R Edward Hendrick; Martin J Yaffe; Janet K Baum; Suddhasatta Acharyya; Jean B Cormack; Lucy A Hanna; Emily F Conant; Laurie L Fajardo; Lawrence W Bassett; Carl J D'Orsi; Roberta A Jong; Murray Rebner; Anna N A Tosteson; Constantine A Gatsonis
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Conformity of behaviors among medical students: impact on performance of knee arthrocentesis in simulation.

Authors:  Tanya N Beran; Kevin McLaughlin; Ahmed Al Ansari; Aliya Kassam
Journal:  Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract       Date:  2012-08-31       Impact factor: 3.853

5.  Digital mammography screening: sensitivity of the programme dependent on breast density.

Authors:  Stefanie Weigel; W Heindel; J Heidrich; H-W Hense; O Heidinger
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2016-11-07       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  Blinded double reading yields a higher programme sensitivity than non-blinded double reading at digital screening mammography: a prospected population based study in the south of The Netherlands.

Authors:  Elisabeth G Klompenhouwer; Adri C Voogd; Gerard J den Heeten; Luc J A Strobbe; Anton F J de Haan; Carla A Wauters; Mireille J M Broeders; Lucien E M Duijm
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2015-01-05       Impact factor: 9.162

7.  Accuracy and reading time for six strategies using digital breast tomosynthesis in women with mammographically negative dense breasts.

Authors:  Alberto Stefano Tagliafico; Massimo Calabrese; Bianca Bignotti; Alessio Signori; Erica Fisci; Federica Rossi; Francesca Valdora; Nehmat Houssami
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2017-06-22       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 8.  Computer aids and human second reading as interventions in screening mammography: two systematic reviews to compare effects on cancer detection and recall rate.

Authors:  Paul Taylor; Henry W W Potts
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2008-03-18       Impact factor: 9.162

9.  Randomized trial of screen-film versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading in population-based screening program: follow-up and final results of Oslo II study.

Authors:  Per Skaane; Solveig Hofvind; Arnulf Skjennald
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Breast Cancer Screening in Denmark: A Cohort Study of Tumor Size and Overdiagnosis.

Authors:  Karsten Juhl Jørgensen; Peter C Gøtzsche; Mette Kalager; Per-Henrik Zahl
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2017-01-10       Impact factor: 25.391

View more
  5 in total

1.  Histopathological diagnosis of cutaneous melanocytic lesions: blinded and nonblinded second opinions offer similar improvement in diagnostic accuracy.

Authors:  Kathleen F Kerr; Gary M Longton; Lisa M Reisch; Andrea C Radick; Megan M Eguchi; Hannah L Shucard; Margaret S Pepe; Michael W Piepkorn; David E Elder; Raymond L Barnhill; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  Clin Exp Dermatol       Date:  2022-06-22       Impact factor: 4.481

2.  Subsequent attendance in a breast cancer screening program after a false-positive result in the Local Health Authority of Bologna (Italy).

Authors:  Lorena Squillace; Lorenzo Pizzi; Flavia Rallo; Carmen Bazzani; Gianni Saguatti; Francesca Mezzetti
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-04-20       Impact factor: 4.379

3.  Potential of a Non-Contrast-Enhanced Abbreviated MRI Screening Protocol (NC-AMRI) in High-Risk Patients under Surveillance for HCC.

Authors:  François Willemssen; Quido de Lussanet de la Sablonière; Daniel Bos; Jan IJzermans; Robert De Man; Roy Dwarkasing
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-08-17       Impact factor: 6.575

4.  Screen-detected and interval breast cancer after concordant and discordant interpretations in a population based screening program using independent double reading.

Authors:  Marit A Martiniussen; Silje Sagstad; Marthe Larsen; Anne Sofie F Larsen; Tone Hovda; Christoph I Lee; Solveig Hofvind
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2022-04-02       Impact factor: 7.034

5.  Optimising breast cancer screening reading: blinding the second reader to the first reader's decisions.

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

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.