Second reading of screening mammograms increases cancer detection and recall rates. Results in the Florence screening programme

Ciatto, Stefano; Ambrogetti, Daniela; Bonardi, R; Catarzi, S; Risso, Gabriella; Turco, Marco Rosselli Del; Mantellini, Paola

doi:10.1258/0969141053908285

Cited by 61 publications

(50 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As reported before, semiautomated software volume measurement of pulmonary nodules is highly repeatable ( 30 ). This also explains why the 2.7% increase in our study is much lower than the 6%-15% observed for breast cancer screening (4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12). In breast cancer screening, lesion identifi cation is relatively diffi cult due to the small difference in density between the lesion and the surrounding normal breast tissue at mammography.…”

Section: Thoracic Imaging: Consensus Double Reading In Ct Lung Cancersupporting

confidence: 67%

“…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%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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: Thoracic Imaging: Consensus Double Reading In Ct Lung Cancersupporting

confidence: 67%

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

“…Compared with single-reading, double interpretation of screening mammograms improves cancer detection rates by 6 -15% (Brown et al, 1996;Harvey et al, 2003;Gur et al, 2004;Ciatto et al, 2005). Double interpretation can be performed in several ways.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Inter-observer variability in mammography screening and effect of type and number of readers on screening outcome

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We prospectively determined the variability in radiologists' interpretation of screening mammograms and assessed the influence of type and number of readers on screening outcome. Twenty-one screening mammography radiographers and eight screening radiologists participated. A total of 106 093 screening mammograms were double-read by two radiographers and, in turn, by two radiologists. Initially, radiologists were blinded to the referral opinion of the radiographers. A woman was referred if she was considered positive at radiologist double-reading with consensus interpretation or referred after radiologist review of positive cases at radiographer double-reading. During 2-year follow-up, clinical data, breast imaging reports, biopsy results and breast surgery reports were collected of all women with a positive screening result from any reader. Single radiologist reading (I) resulted in a mean cancer detection rate of 4.64 per 1000 screens (95% confidence intervals (CI) ¼ 4.23 -5.05) with individual variations from 3.44 (95% CI ¼ 2.30 -4.58) to 5.04 (95% CI ¼ 3.81 -6.27), and a sensitivity of 63.9% (95% CI ¼ 60.5 -67.3), ranging from 51.5% (95% CI ¼ 39.6 -63.3) to 75.0% (95% CI ¼ 65.3 -84.7). Sensitivity at non-blinded, radiologist double-reading (II), radiologist double-reading followed by radiologist review of positive cases at radiographer double-reading (III), triple reading by one radiologist and two radiographers with referral of all positive readings (IV) and quadruple reading by two radiologists and two radiographers with referral of all positive readings (V) were as follows: 68.6% (95% CI ¼ 65.3 -71.9) (II); 73.2% (95% CI ¼ 70.1 -76.4) (III); 75.2% (95% CI ¼ 72.1 -78.2) (IV), and 76.9% (95% CI ¼ 73.9 -79.9) (V). We conclude that screener performance significantly varied at singlereading. Double-reading increased sensitivity by a relative 7.3%. When there is a shortage of screening radiologists, triple reading by one radiologist and two radiographers may replace radiologist double-reading.

show abstract

“…This increase is higher than that reported for double reading in screening mammography. Ciatto et al (2005) reports a 14% increase of referral from 3.15 to 3.59% after double reading.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Beyond mammography screening: quality assurance in breast cancer diagnosis (The QuaMaDi Project)

Katalinic

Bartel

Raspe³

et al. 2006

Br J Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As many breast cancer cases are detected outside mammographic screening, a multidisciplinary quality management (QuaMaDi) project involving gynaecologists, double reading by radiologists. and centralised assessment, documentation, evaluation and feedback was implemented into routine breast cancer diagnosis in part of Schleswig-Holstein (Germany) with a population of 365 000 women. A cohort of 59 514 patients eligible for diagnostic mammography was examined from May 2001 to December 2005 and quality indicators, breast cancer incidence and tumour stage distribution were analysed. A total of 102 744 diagnostic processes were initiated, for 23.8% of which (24 470) a third expert reading at the reference centre was performed. Further assessment was recommended for 6.3% (6442) of all patients. In total, 1056 breast cancer cases were diagnosed (10.3 per 1000 examinations). Patients of the QuaMaDi project had a higher proportion of 'in situ' and T1 tumours (62.6% vs Schleswig-Holstein: 48.6%), showing that the implementation of high standards in routine diagnostic mammography can improve the quality of breast cancer diagnosis and care.

show abstract

Second reading of screening mammograms increases cancer detection and recall rates. Results in the Florence screening programme

Cited by 61 publications

References 16 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

Inter-observer variability in mammography screening and effect of type and number of readers on screening outcome

Beyond mammography screening: quality assurance in breast cancer diagnosis (The QuaMaDi Project)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About