Literature DB >> 8162681

The efficacy of double reading mammograms in breast screening.

E D Anderson1, B B Muir, J S Walsh, A E Kirkpatrick.   

Abstract

The effect of double reporting the screening mammograms of 31,146 women attending as part of the UK National Health Service Breast Screening Programme was analysed. Ninety per cent had their mammograms read by two of three experienced radiologists. Overall 1846 (5.9%) women were recalled for further assessment. Two hundred and sixty-one patients (0.8%) underwent surgical intervention resulting in the detection of 191 cancers (6.1/1000 women screened). The benign-to-malignant ratio was 1:3.6 (PPV 73.2%). Of the invasive cancers detected 72% had no histological evidence of axillary lymph node metastases. Twenty-one of the 191 cancers detected (10.4%) were missed by one of the two reporters. Six of these were invasive cancers < or = 1 cm in diameter. Comparison of those lesions detected by both readers to those detected by only one, showed readers were more likely to detect those lesions appearing as an opacity (65% vs 38%), but less likely to detect significant microcalcification (15% vs 33%). The difference between the two groups when taken as a whole, however, failed to reach statistical significance (chi 2 = 6.76, d.f. = 3, P = 0.08). In summary, double reporting resulted in an increase in sensitivity of 10%. However, there was a decrease in specificity of 1.8% with 569 women being recalled unnecessarily for assessment and biopsy of 13 benign lesions. The estimated resultant additional financial cost was 13773 pounds.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1994        PMID: 8162681     DOI: 10.1016/s0009-9260(05)81850-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Radiol        ISSN: 0009-9260            Impact factor:   2.350


  17 in total

1.  Can breast surgeons read mammograms of symptomatic patients in the one-stop breast clinic?

Authors:  M C Rao; C D Griffith; A B Griffiths
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 1.891

2.  Changes in Benign to Malignant Ratio of Surgically Treated Breast Diseases in a District Hospital.

Authors:  Gábor Cserni
Journal:  Pathol Oncol Res       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 3.201

3.  Standalone computer-aided detection compared to radiologists' performance for the detection of mammographic masses.

Authors:  Rianne Hupse; Maurice Samulski; Marc Lobbes; Ard den Heeten; Mechli W Imhof-Tas; David Beijerinck; Ruud Pijnappel; Carla Boetes; Nico Karssemeijer
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2012-07-08       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  A comparative audit of prevalent, incident and interval cancers in the Avon breast screening programme.

Authors:  P A Sylvester; M N Vipond; E Kutt; J D Davies; A J Webb; J R Farndon
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  1997-07       Impact factor: 1.891

5.  Benefits of Independent Double Reading in Digital Mammography: A Theoretical Evaluation of All Possible Pairing Methodologies.

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

Review 6.  Double reading in breast cancer screening: considerations for policy-making.

Authors:  Sian Taylor-Phillips; Chris Stinton
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2019-10-23       Impact factor: 3.039

7.  Mammography screening: an incremental cost effectiveness analysis of double versus single reading of mammograms.

Authors:  J Brown; S Bryan; R Warren
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1996-03-30

8.  What should be done about interval breast cancers?

Authors:  S Field; M J Michell; M G Wallis; A R Wilson
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1995-01-28

9.  Direct communication between radiologists and patients improves the quality of imaging reports.

Authors:  Andreas Gutzeit; Elisabeth Sartoretti; Clemens Reisinger; Janusch Blautzik; Sabine Sartoretti-Schefer; Sebastian Kos; Arne Fischmann; Ricardo Donners; Dorothee Harder; Matthias Meissnitzer; Klaus Hergan; Selina Largiadèr; Rosemarie Forstner; Johannes M Froehlich; Carolin Reischauer; Simon Matoori; Dow Mu Koh; Thomas Sartoretti
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2021-04-28       Impact factor: 5.315

10.  "CADEAT": considerations on the use of CAD (computer-aided diagnosis) in mammography.

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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.