An observational study to evaluate the performance of units using two radiographers to read screening mammograms.

AIM: To examine the performance of screening units in which a proportion of mammograms were double read using "non-discordant radiographer only (double) reading" (NDROR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: NDROR was used by seven pilot units between 2006 and 2009, and six further units in 2009 only. There were 51 comparison units. Screening performance outcome measures were calculated, and logistic regression was used to compare performance between the pilot and comparison units. RESULTS: Phase 1 pilot units read between on average 15 and 48% of mammograms per year using NDROR between 2006 and 2009 (median, 33%) and in 2009, phase 2 pilot units used NDROR to read between 4 and 77% of mammograms (median, 34%). The results showed an increase in recall rates in the phase 1 pilot units relative to the comparison units at both prevalent and incident screens (adjusted OR 1.09, 95% CI 1.05, 1.14; and adjusted OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.07, 1.14, respectively). There were also increases in the phase 2 pilot units relative to the comparison units; adjusted OR 1.08 (95% 1.00, 1.17) at prevalent screens, and adjusted OR 1.07 (95% CI 1.02, 1.14) at incident screens. There was no evidence to suggest a difference in cancer-detection rates between the pilot units and the comparison units. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from the present study suggests that recall rates may increase as a result of units using radiographers to double read a proportion of their mammograms. However, there is little evidence to suggest that NDROR, as practiced by the pilot units in the present study, is likely to have major impacts on performance in the UK National Health Service Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP), particularly if it is fully supported and closely monitored (particularly recall rates).

Interval cancers in the NHS breast cancer screening programme in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

BACKGROUND: The United Kingdom NHS Breast Screening Programme was established in 1988, and women aged between 50 and 70 are routinely invited at three yearly intervals. Expected United Kingdom interval cancer rates have been calculated previously, but this is the first publication from an exercise to collate individual-based interval cancer data at a national level. METHODS: Interval cancer case ascertainment is achieved by the regular exchange of data between Regional Breast Screening Quality Assurance Reference Centres and Cancer Registries. The present analysis includes interval cancers identified in women screened between 1st April 1997 and 31st March 2003, who were aged between 50 and 64 at the time of their last routine screen. RESULTS: In the periods >0-<12 months, 12-<24 months and 24-<36 months after a negative screen, we found overall interval cancer rates and regional ranges of 0.55 (0.43-0.76), 1.13 (0.92-1.47) and 1.22 (0.93-1.57) per 1000 women screened, respectively. Rates in the period 33-<36 months showed a decline, possibly associated with early re-screening or delayed presentation. CONCLUSIONS: Interval cancer rates were higher than the expected rates in the 24-month period after a negative screen, but were similar to published results from other countries. Increases in background incidence may mean that the expected rates are underestimated. It is also possible that, as a result of incomplete case ascertainment, interval cancers rates were underestimated in some regions in which rates were less than the expected.