Impact of the second reader on screening outcome at blinded double reading of digital screening mammograms
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 inc... Mehr ...
Verfasser: | |
---|---|
Dokumenttyp: | Artikel |
Erscheinungsdatum: | 2018 |
Reihe/Periodikum: | Coolen , A M P , Voogd , A C , Strobbe , L J , Louwman , M W J , Tjan-Heijnen , V C G & Duijm , L E M 2018 , ' Impact of the second reader on screening outcome at blinded double reading of digital screening mammograms ' , British Journal of Cancer , vol. 119 , no. 4 , pp. 503-507 . https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-018-0195-6 |
Schlagwörter: | RECALL RATE / BREAST / PROGRAM / NETHERLANDS / CANCERS / SENSITIVITY / ARBITRATION |
Sprache: | Englisch |
Permalink: | https://search.fid-benelux.de/Record/base-27206967 |
Datenquelle: | BASE; Originalkatalog |
Powered By: | BASE |
Link(s) : | https://cris.maastrichtuniversity.nl/en/publications/e2def6cb-df82-400f-bec0-5cb50343c9bc |
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.