PURPOSE: To evaluate independent double reading in mammography screening and, specifically, the effect on breast cancer detection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Mammographic studies of 11,343 women, aged 41-75 years, who participated in a population-based screening program were independently screened by two experienced radiologists. A retrospective analysis also was performed from notations made for patient recalls. RESULTS: Including follow-up of recalled women, 131 surgical biopsies were performed, which resulted in 76 histologically proved breast cancers. Fifty-six cancerous lesions were detected by both screeners. One screener detected 14 cancerous lesions alone, and the other detected six alone. Of the cancerous lesions detected by only one screener, 85% were stage 0 or 1, compared with 59% of those detected by both screeners. Double reading detected 15% (95% confidence interval, +/- 7%) more cancer cases with an almost unchanged positive predictive value of 0.6. CONCLUSION: Independent double reading does significantly increase sensitivity of mammography screening.
PURPOSE: To evaluate independent double reading in mammography screening and, specifically, the effect on breast cancer detection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Mammographic studies of 11,343 women, aged 41-75 years, who participated in a population-based screening program were independently screened by two experienced radiologists. A retrospective analysis also was performed from notations made for patientrecalls. RESULTS: Including follow-up of recalled women, 131 surgical biopsies were performed, which resulted in 76 histologically proved breast cancers. Fifty-six cancerous lesions were detected by both screeners. One screener detected 14 cancerous lesions alone, and the other detected six alone. Of the cancerous lesions detected by only one screener, 85% were stage 0 or 1, compared with 59% of those detected by both screeners. Double reading detected 15% (95% confidence interval, +/- 7%) more cancer cases with an almost unchanged positive predictive value of 0.6. CONCLUSION: Independent double reading does significantly increase sensitivity of mammography screening.
Authors: L Costaridou; S Skiadopoulos; P Sakellaropoulos; E Likaki; C P Kalogeropoulou; G Panayiotakis Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2005-02-09 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: R Edward Hendrick; Gary R Cutter; Eric A Berns; Connie Nakano; Joseph Egger; Patricia A Carney; Linn Abraham; Stephen H Taplin; Carl J D'Orsi; William Barlow; Joann G Elmore Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Roberto R Pereira; Paulo M Azevedo Marques; Marcelo O Honda; Sergio K Kinoshita; Roger Engelmann; Chisako Muramatsu; Kunio Doi Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 4.056
Authors: Solveig Hofvind; Pamela M Vacek; Joan Skelly; Donald L Weaver; Berta M Geller Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2008-07-29 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: R Chersevani; S Ciatto; C Del Favero; A Frigerio; L Giordano; G Giuseppetti; C Naldoni; P Panizza; M Petrella; G Saguatti Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2010-01-15 Impact factor: 3.469