Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Impact of the second reader on screening outcome at blinded double reading of digital screening mammograms.
Coolen, Angela M P; Voogd, Adri C; Strobbe, Luc J; Louwman, Marieke W J; Tjan-Heijnen, Vivianne C G; Duijm, Lucien E M.
Afiliação
  • Coolen AMP; Department of Radiology, Elisabeth-Tweesteden Hospital (ETZ), PO Box 90151, 5000 LC, Tilburg, The Netherlands. a.coolen88@hotmail.com.
  • Voogd AC; Department of Epidemiology, GROW, Maastricht University, P Debyelaan 1, 6229 HA, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
  • Strobbe LJ; Department of Research, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization (IKNL), PO Box 19079, 3501 DB, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
  • Louwman MWJ; Department of Surgery, Canisius-Wilhelmina Hospital, PO Box 9015, 6500 GS, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
  • Tjan-Heijnen VCG; Department of Research, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization (IKNL), PO Box 19079, 3501 DB, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
  • Duijm LEM; Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, GROW, Maastricht University Medical Centre, P Debyelaan 25, 6229 HX, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Br J Cancer ; 119(4): 503-507, 2018 08.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30038325
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

To determine the impact of the second reader on screening outcome at blinded double reading of digital screening mammograms.

METHODS:

We included a consecutive series of 99,013 digital screening mammograms, obtained between July 2013 and January 2015 and double read in a blinded fashion. During 2-year follow-up, we collected radiology, surgery and pathology reports of recalled women.

RESULTS:

Single reading resulted in 2928 recalls and 616 screen-detected cancers (SDCs). The second reader recalled another 612 women, resulting in 82 additional SDCs. Addition of the second reader increased the recall rate (3.0% to 3.6%, p < 0.001), cancer detection rate (6.2-7.0 per 1000 screens, p < 0.001) and false positive recall rate (24.4-28.7 per 1000 screens, p < 0.001). Positive predictive value of recall (21.0% vs. 19.7%, p = 0.20) and of biopsy (52.1% vs. 50.9%, p = 0.56) were comparable for single reading and blinded double reading. Tumour characteristics were comparable for cancers detected by the first reader and cancers additionally detected by the second reader, except of a more favourable tumour grade in the latter group.

CONCLUSIONS:

At blinded double reading, the second reader significantly increases the cancer detection rate, at the expense of an increased recall rate and false positive recall rate.
Assuntos

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Neoplasias da Mama / Mamografia Tipo de estudo: Diagnostic_studies / Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies / Screening_studies Limite: Aged / Female / Humans / Middle aged Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2018 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Neoplasias da Mama / Mamografia Tipo de estudo: Diagnostic_studies / Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies / Screening_studies Limite: Aged / Female / Humans / Middle aged Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2018 Tipo de documento: Article