Blinded double reading yields a higher programme sensitivity than non-blinded double reading at digital screening mammography: A prospected population based study in the south of The Netherlands

Klompenhouwer, Elisabeth G.; Voogd, Adri C.; Heeten, Gerard J. den; Strobbe, Luc J. A.; Haan, A.F.J. de; Wauters, C. A. P.; Broeders, Mireille J. M.; Duijm, Luciën E. M.

doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2014.12.008

Cited by 32 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We previously reported that blinded double reading increased program sensitivity compared to non-blinded double reading, at the expense of an increased recall rate [7]. The current study shows that this increased recall rate is due to a higher number of BI-RADS category 0 and 4 recalls.…”

Section: Arbitration Of Discrepant Bi-rads 0 Readings At Non-blinded mentioning

confidence: 41%

“…Details of the screening procedures have been described previously [7]. In brief, the mammographic examinations were read by a team of 12 certified screening radiologists with 1e15 years of screening mammography experience.…”

Section: Screening Procedures and Recallmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Double reading can be performed either in a blinded fashion (2nd reader is not informed about the 1st reader's decision) or nonblinded fashion (2nd reader is informed about the 1st reader's decision). We recently showed that blinded double reading at full field digital mammography (FFDM) resulted in a significantly better program sensitivity of screening mammography compared to nonblinded double reading, but at the expense of a higher overall recall rate and false positive recall rate [7]. In that study, the women with a discrepant reading between two screening radiologists (i.e., when only one radiologist considers recall necessary) were always recalled for further analysis.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Arbitration of discrepant BI-RADS 0 recalls by a third reader at screening mammography lowers recall rate but not the cancer detection rate and sensitivity at blinded and non-blinded double reading

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Arbitration Of Discrepant Bi-rads 0 Readings At Non-blinded mentioning

confidence: 41%

Section: Screening Procedures and Recallmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Arbitration of discrepant BI-RADS 0 recalls by a third reader at screening mammography lowers recall rate but not the cancer detection rate and sensitivity at blinded and non-blinded double reading

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Several measures have been explored to improve the sensitivity of screening mammography, including viewing condition optimisation, two‐view mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis, full field digital mammography, computer‐aided detection software and double reading. Independent double reporting is currently endorsed by European, British, Australian and New Zealand guidelines and is supported by evidence from population‐based national or regional screening programmes with large sample sizes . These studies have generally focussed on recall rate, sensitivity, CDR and cost‐effectiveness.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the effect of double reporting on test accuracy in screening and diagnostic imaging studies: A review of the evidence

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Diagnostic error in radiology is not uncommon, with rates of clinically significant error reported to be as high as 20%. Radiological errors are often multifactorial, however, perceptual factors are thought to be mainly responsible. One way of reducing perceptual error is that of double reporting, which refers to the interpretation of radiological investigations by two observers, with strategies of arbitration and consensus available to settle discordant reports. Independent double reporting, where observers have no knowledge of each other's reports, is generally considered to be the most effective form. The impact of double reporting on diagnostic efficacy has been primarily explored in screening mammography, where it has consistently been shown to improve sensitivity, cancer detection rate and depending on local policy, have a positive influence on recall rates. Subsequently, the adoption of double reporting is reported as standard practice in many national and regional breast cancerscreening programmes. To a lesser extent, the impact of double reporting has also been investigated for neuroradiology, thoracic and gastrointestinal imaging, with small-scale studies in these fields showing promising results. With the widespread implementation of digitisation and the ease of access to images, the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of double reporting for other common radiological investigations requires attention. The review will evaluate the evidence regarding the effect of double interpretation of diagnostic imaging studies on test accuracy.

show abstract

“…However, there is no evidence to date, that this process can improve prostate multiparametric-MRI accuracy in routine, as it does for breast imaging, whose classification is also based on a standardized score [48][49][50]. Further studies, based on prospective evaluation of large routine series of prostate multiparametric-MRI are still expected.…”

Section: Double-readingmentioning

confidence: 99%

How are we going to train a generation of radiologists (and urologists) to read prostate MRI?

Puech

Randazzo

Ouzzane

et al. 2015

Current Opinion in Urology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PURPOSE OF REVIEW Multiparametric MRI has gained tremendous importance in the daily practice for patients at risk or diagnosed with prostate cancer. Interpretation of multiparametric-MRI is a complex task, supposedly restricted to experienced radiologists. The purpose of this review is to analyze fundamentals of multiparametric-MRI interpretation and to describe how multiparametric-MRI training could be organized. RECENT FINDINGS Recently, professional guidelines have been published to provide technical and interpretation frameworks and harmonize multiparametric-MRI practice, but the question of physicians training in prostate multiparametric-MRI reading is still pending. What kind of education, practice, and training makes a radiologist able to reliably interpret a prostate multiparametric-MRI? How can findings be reported to be easily understood? How much experience is needed? How can we train urologists and other physicians to review the examinations they request? Is double-reading necessary? SUMMARY An institutional-based competency certification process for prostate multiparametric-MRI interpretation may encourage nonspecialized radiologists to qualify for prostate imaging in a standardized and reproducible way, exactly as urologists need it. Purpose of review Multiparametric MRI has gained tremendous importance in the daily practice for patients at risk or diagnosed with prostate cancer. Interpretation of multiparametric-MRI is a complex task, supposedly restricted to experienced radiologists. The purpose of this review is to analyze fundamentals of multiparametric-MRI interpretation and to describe how multiparametric-MRI training could be organized. Recent findingsRecently, professional guidelines have been published to provide technical and interpretation frameworks and harmonize multiparametric-MRI practice, but the question of physicians training in prostate multiparametric-MRI reading is still pending. What kind of education, practice, and training makes a radiologist able to reliably interpret a prostate multiparametric-MRI? How can findings be reported to be easily understood? How much experience is needed? How can we train urologists and other physicians to review the examinations they request? Is double-reading necessary? Summary An institutional-based competency certification process for prostate multiparametric-MRI interpretation may encourage nonspecialized radiologists to qualify for prostate imaging in a standardized and reproducible way, exactly as urologists need it.

show abstract

Blinded double reading yields a higher programme sensitivity than non-blinded double reading at digital screening mammography: A prospected population based study in the south of The Netherlands

Cited by 32 publications

References 36 publications

Arbitration of discrepant BI-RADS 0 recalls by a third reader at screening mammography lowers recall rate but not the cancer detection rate and sensitivity at blinded and non-blinded double reading

Arbitration of discrepant BI-RADS 0 recalls by a third reader at screening mammography lowers recall rate but not the cancer detection rate and sensitivity at blinded and non-blinded double reading

Evaluation of the effect of double reporting on test accuracy in screening and diagnostic imaging studies: A review of the evidence

How are we going to train a generation of radiologists (and urologists) to read prostate MRI?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About