Double reading of mammography screening films-one radiologist or two?

Anttinen, I.; Pamilo, M.; Soiva, M.; Roiha, M.

doi:10.1016/s0009-9260(05)81111-0

Cited by 108 publications

(52 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Several studies have investigated the benefi t of double reading in breast cancer screening and have shown that double reading increased the cancer detection rate by 6%-15% compared with single reading (4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12). Taking the costs of double reading into account, double reading also appeared to be more cost effective than a single reading policy ( 13,14 ).…”

Section: Study Groupmentioning

confidence: 99%

No Benefit for Consensus Double Reading at Baseline Screening for Lung Cancer with the Use of Semiautomated Volumetry Software

Wang¹,

Klaveren²,

Bock³

et al. 2012

Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose:To retrospectively evaluate the performance of consensus double reading compared with single reading at baseline screening of a lung cancer computed tomography (CT) screening trial. Materials and Methods:The study was approved by the Dutch Minister of Health and ethical committees. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants. The benefi t of consensus double reading was expressed by the percentage change in cancer detection rate, recall rate, number of additional nodules detected, and change in sensitivity and specifi city in 7557 participants. The reference standard was a retrospective analysis of the serial CT scans performed in participants diagnosed with lung cancer during a 2-year period after baseline. Semiautomated volumetric software was used for nodule evaluation. McNemar tests were performed to test statistical signifi cance. In addition, sensitivity, specifi city, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated and 95% confi dence intervals (CIs) constructed. Results:Seventy-four cases of lung cancer were qualifi ed as detectable at baseline. Compared with single reading, consensus double reading did not increase the cancer detection rate (2.7%; 95% CI: 2 1.0%, 6.4%; P = .50) or change the recall rate (20.6% vs 20.8%, P = . Conclusion:There is no statistically signifi cant benefi t for consensus double reading at baseline screening for lung cancer with the use of a nodule management strategy based solely on semiautomated volumetry.

show abstract

Section: Study Groupmentioning

confidence: 99%

No Benefit for Consensus Double Reading at Baseline Screening for Lung Cancer with the Use of Semiautomated Volumetry Software

Wang¹,

Klaveren²,

Bock³

et al. 2012

Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…ouble reading of screening mammograms has been shown to increase the cancer detection rate [1][2][3][4] and is recommended as a standard procedure in current service screening. 5 A discordant report at double reading, with only one reader recommending referral for diagnostic assessment, is rather frequent when 'independent' double reading is performed; that is, discordant readings are managed according to an 'or' fashion (positivity at either reading prompts assessment); referral rates are substantially increased.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Both procedures have been shown to be effective in clinical studies. 4,6,7 Mammography screening has been carried out in Florence at the Centro per lo Studio e la Prevenzione Oncologica (CSPO) since 1970. The detailed features of the programme have been already reported.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of arbitration of discordant reports at double reading of screening mammograms

et al. 2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To asses the effectiveness of arbitration of discordant double readings in mammography screening. Design: A retrospective study of 1217 consecutive arbitrations. Setting: A subset of discordant double readings from the Florence screening programme underwent arbitration by a third reader. Results: Positive arbitration of 1217 discordant double readings prompted assessment in 476 cases (39.2%), detecting 30 cancers (6.3%). Of 741 negative arbitrations (60.8%), 311 have been followed up thus far, and two cancers (0.64%) occurred in the site previously suspected at one of the two independent readings. Arbitration had a sensitivity of 86.3% and a negative predictive value of 99.3%. Arbitration reduced the overall referral rates from 3.82% to 2.59% (relative decrease 32.1%). Due to false-negative arbitration, cancers detected per 1000 women screened would decrease from 4.58 to 4.50 (relative decrease 1.7%). For every cancer missed due to false-negative arbitration, 151 unnecessary recalls and h21,248 would have been saved, whereas the saved cost per screened woman due to arbitration was h1.72. Discussion: Arbitration of discordant double reading would substantially reduce referral rates with a limited reduction in cancer detection rate, and may be recommended as a routine procedure. Greater benefit from arbitration might be expected in the presence of high referral rates at independent double reading, a common scenario in a newly implemented service screening.

show abstract

“…An important factor for the high specificity and sensitivity is also the double reading of all the mammograms. Double reading with consensus decisions can decrease the number of recalled women by 45% and increase the number of detected breast cancers by 9% (18).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Screening Mammography in Finland - 1.5 Million Examinations with 97 percent Specificity

Dean

1999

Acta Oncologica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Double reading of mammography screening films-one radiologist or two?

Cited by 108 publications

References 18 publications

No Benefit for Consensus Double Reading at Baseline Screening for Lung Cancer with the Use of Semiautomated Volumetry Software

No Benefit for Consensus Double Reading at Baseline Screening for Lung Cancer with the Use of Semiautomated Volumetry Software

The role of arbitration of discordant reports at double reading of screening mammograms

Screening Mammography in Finland - 1.5 Million Examinations with 97 percent Specificity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About