Literature DB >> 9934650

A comparison of cancer detection rates achieved by breast cancer screening programmes by number of readers, for one and two view mammography: results from the UK National Health Service breast screening programme.

R G Blanks1, M G Wallis, S M Moss.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine the increased cancer detection rate, if any, of programmes in the UK National Health Service breast screening programme (NHSBSP) using more than single reading of mammograms.
DESIGN: Information on the detection of cancers by individual screening programmes from annual (KC62) returns, supplemented by questionnaire information about the number of readers.
SETTING: The 87 NHSBSP programmes from England and Wales for the screening year 1 April 1996 to 31 March 1997. The study includes all programmes for prevalent screens where two views are mandatory, but excludes the four programmes using two view mammography for incident screening. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cancer detection, invasive cancer detection, and small (< 15 mm) invasive cancer detection by mammographic reading protocol using single reading as the reference level.
RESULTS: Programmes collectively using single reading detected the lowest rate of cancers at both prevalent (first) and incident (subsequent) screening. The highest rate of age standardised cancer detection was achieved by programmes using double reading with arbitration. At prevalent screens, where all programmes used two views, those programmes using double reading with arbitration detected 32% (95% confidence interval (CI) 3% to 69%) more small (< 15 mm) invasive cancers than programmes using single reading. At incident screens, where all programmes analysed used one view this increased to 73% (95% CI 40% to 113%). Recall rates showed no obvious difference between single reading and the double reading protocols, being around 7% for prevalent screens and 3.5% for incident screens. DISCUSSION: The results suggest that the increase in cancer detection resulting from increasing the number of readers depends on the number of views, and is higher for one view than two views. Single reading of one view results in a low detection rate of small invasive cancers for most individual programmes. It is, however, recognised that a small number of individual readers may achieve high detection rates with such a protocol. All groups of programmes using different reader/view protocols are on average close to or above target cancer detection rates, except those using single reading of one view (mediolateral oblique) at incident screens.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9934650     DOI: 10.1136/jms.5.4.195

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


  19 in total

1.  Screening for breast and cervical cancer as a common cause for litigation. A false negative result may be one of an irreducible minimum of errors.

Authors:  R M Wilson
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-05-20

2.  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

3.  Maximising benefit and minimising harm of screening.

Authors:  J A M Gray; J Patnick; R G Blanks
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2008-03-01

4.  European survey of imaging in non-accidental injury demonstrates a need for a consensus protocol.

Authors:  Oliver S Hulson; Rick R van Rijn; Amaka C Offiah
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2014-07-05

5.  Two view mammography at incident screens: cost effectiveness analysis of policy options.

Authors:  K Johnston; J Brown
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-10-23

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.  Sensitivity and specificity of mammographic screening as practised in Vermont and Norway.

Authors:  S Hofvind; B M Geller; J Skelly; P M Vacek
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2012-09-19       Impact factor: 3.039

8.  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

9.  Computer-assisted diagnosis (CAD) in mammography: comparison of diagnostic accuracy of a new algorithm (Cyclopus, Medicad) with two commercial systems.

Authors:  S Ciatto; D Cascio; F Fauci; R Magro; G Raso; R Ienzi; F Martinelli; M Vasile Simone
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2009-05-14       Impact factor: 3.469

10.  Association between Screening Mammography Recall Rate and Interval Cancers in the UK Breast Cancer Service Screening Program: A Cohort Study.

Authors:  Elizabeth S Burnside; Daniel Vulkan; Roger G Blanks; Stephen W Duffy
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2018-04-03       Impact factor: 11.105

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.