Literature DB >> 8861046

Comparison of radiographer/radiologist double film reading with single reading in breast cancer screening.

R Pauli1, S Hammond, J Cooke, J Ansell.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES - To assess the efficacy of dual film reading in screening mammography with a suitably trained radiographer as the second reader and to determine a suitable decision model for radiographer/radiologist double reading. SETTING - Three breast screening centres in South Thames (West) region. METHODS - Seven radiographers with prior film reading training double read 17 202 screening mammograms with a radiologist. Screening performance of radiographers and radiologists was assessed taking into account interval cancers. The efficacy of radiographer/radiologist double reading was assessed in terms of changes in sensitivity and specificity compared with radiologist single reading. RESULTS - Radiographers yielded equivalent sensitivity but lower specificity than radiologist film readers. The effect of double reading between radiographer/radiologist pairs was an increase in sensitivity of 6-4%, which was achieved at the cost of a 0-6% decrease in specificity. This was reached by a decision system involving radiologists' review of radiographer queries and recall classifications. If all radiographer queries were recalled a large increase in sensitivity would be counterbalanced by an equally large decrease in specificity. CONCLUSIONS - Radiographer/radiologist double reading resulted in similar increases in sensitivity as those previously reported in radiologist double reading studies. Radiologist review of radiographer reported abnormalities is a suitable means by which to limit excess recall.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8861046     DOI: 10.1177/096914139600300106

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Screen        ISSN: 0969-1413            Impact factor:   2.136


  8 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

Review 2.  CAD for mammography: the technique, results, current role and further developments.

Authors:  Ansgar Malich; Dorothee R Fischer; Joachim Böttcher
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2006-01-17       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Intercountry analysis of breast density classification using visual grading.

Authors:  Christine N Damases; Peter Hogg; Mark F McEntee
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2017-06-14       Impact factor: 3.039

4.  Double versus single reading of mammograms in a breast cancer screening programme: a cost-consequence analysis.

Authors:  Margarita C Posso; Teresa Puig; Ma Jesus Quintana; Judit Solà-Roca; Xavier Bonfill
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2016-01-08       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  Inter-observer variability in mammography screening and effect of type and number of readers on screening outcome.

Authors:  L E M Duijm; M W J Louwman; J H Groenewoud; L V van de Poll-Franse; J Fracheboud; J W Coebergh
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2009-03-03       Impact factor: 7.640

6.  Evaluating radiographers' diagnostic accuracy in screen-reading mammograms: what constitutes a quality study?

Authors:  Josephine C Debono; Ann E Poulos
Journal:  J Med Radiat Sci       Date:  2014-08-14

7.  Evaluation of radiographers' mammography screen-reading accuracy in Australia.

Authors:  Josephine C Debono; Ann E Poulos; Nehmat Houssami; Robin M Turner; John Boyages
Journal:  J Med Radiat Sci       Date:  2014-08-06

8.  The influence of breast density and key demographics of radiographers on mammography reporting performance - a pilot study.

Authors:  Maram Alakhras; Dana S Al-Mousa; Alaa K Alqadi; Haneen A Sabaneh; Ruba M Karasneh; Kelly M Spuur
Journal:  J Med Radiat Sci       Date:  2021-05-24
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.