Literature DB >> 8293648

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

I Anttinen1, M Pamilo, M Soiva, M Roiha.   

Abstract

The effect of double reading on the number of breast cancers detected and the number of women recalled was examined in 15,457 women aged 50-59 years attending for mammographic breast screening. All the screening mammograms were interpreted independently by two radiologists without knowledge of each other's findings. All the cases selected by either radiologist were then reviewed by both radiologists and a consensus decision made on whom to recall for further studies. This method of double reading increased the number of breast cancers detected by 9% (P < 0.05) and decreased the number of women recalled by 45% (P < 0.001). Double reading of mammography screening films together with consensus decisions on the selected cases is recommended.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8293648     DOI: 10.1016/s0009-9260(05)81111-0

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


  13 in total

1.  Exact calculations of average power for the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.

Authors:  Deborah H Glueck; Jan Mandel; Anis Karimpour-Fard; Lawrence Hunter; Keith E Muller
Journal:  Int J Biostat       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 0.968

2.  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

3.  Second Opinion Assessment in Diagnostic Mammography at a Breast Cancer Centre.

Authors:  J Lorenzen; A K Finck-Wedel; B Lisboa; G Adam
Journal:  Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 2.915

Review 4.  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

5.  Radiologists' perceptions of computer aided detection versus double reading for mammography interpretation.

Authors:  Tracy Onega; Erin J Aiello Bowles; Diana L Miglioretti; Patricia A Carney; Berta M Geller; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Karla Kerlikowske; Edward A Sickles; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 3.173

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

Authors:  Annika Waldmann; Smaragda Kapsimalakou; Alexander Katalinic; Isabell Grande-Nagel; Beate M Stoeckelhuber; Dorothea Fischer; Joerg Barkhausen; Florian M Vogt
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2011-11-18       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  Double Reading in Breast Cancer Screening: Cohort Evaluation in the CO-OPS Trial.

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

8.  Two-modality mammography may confer an advantage over either full-field digital mammography or screen-film mammography.

Authors:  Deborah H Glueck; Molly M Lamb; John M Lewin; Etta D Pisano
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 3.173

9.  Computer-assisted mammographic imaging.

Authors:  C R Boggis; S M Astley
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2000-08-25       Impact factor: 6.466

10.  Breast imaging in the new era.

Authors:  K Planche; S Vinnicombe
Journal:  Cancer Imaging       Date:  2004-01-12       Impact factor: 3.909

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.