Cargando…
Inter-observer variability in mammography screening and effect of type and number of readers on screening outcome
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 scr...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Nature Publishing Group
2009
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2661777/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19259088 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6604954 |
_version_ | 1782165819305754624 |
---|---|
author | Duijm, L E M Louwman, M W J Groenewoud, J H van de Poll-Franse, L V Fracheboud, J Coebergh, J W |
author_facet | Duijm, L E M Louwman, M W J Groenewoud, J H van de Poll-Franse, L V Fracheboud, J Coebergh, J W |
author_sort | Duijm, L E M |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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)=4.23–5.05) with individual variations from 3.44 (95% CI=2.30–4.58) to 5.04 (95% CI=3.81–6.27), and a sensitivity of 63.9% (95% CI=60.5–67.3), ranging from 51.5% (95% CI=39.6–63.3) to 75.0% (95% CI=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=65.3–71.9) (II); 73.2% (95% CI=70.1–76.4) (III); 75.2% (95% CI=72.1–78.2) (IV), and 76.9% (95% CI=73.9–79.9) (V). We conclude that screener performance significantly varied at single-reading. 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. |
format | Text |
id | pubmed-2661777 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2009 |
publisher | Nature Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-26617772010-03-24 Inter-observer variability in mammography screening and effect of type and number of readers on screening outcome Duijm, L E M Louwman, M W J Groenewoud, J H van de Poll-Franse, L V Fracheboud, J Coebergh, J W Br J Cancer Clinical Study 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)=4.23–5.05) with individual variations from 3.44 (95% CI=2.30–4.58) to 5.04 (95% CI=3.81–6.27), and a sensitivity of 63.9% (95% CI=60.5–67.3), ranging from 51.5% (95% CI=39.6–63.3) to 75.0% (95% CI=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=65.3–71.9) (II); 73.2% (95% CI=70.1–76.4) (III); 75.2% (95% CI=72.1–78.2) (IV), and 76.9% (95% CI=73.9–79.9) (V). We conclude that screener performance significantly varied at single-reading. 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. Nature Publishing Group 2009-03-24 2009-03-03 /pmc/articles/PMC2661777/ /pubmed/19259088 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6604954 Text en Copyright © 2009 Cancer Research UK https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material.If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Clinical Study Duijm, L E M Louwman, M W J Groenewoud, J H van de Poll-Franse, L V Fracheboud, J Coebergh, J W Inter-observer variability in mammography screening and effect of type and number of readers on screening outcome |
title | Inter-observer variability in mammography screening and effect of type and number of readers on screening outcome |
title_full | Inter-observer variability in mammography screening and effect of type and number of readers on screening outcome |
title_fullStr | Inter-observer variability in mammography screening and effect of type and number of readers on screening outcome |
title_full_unstemmed | Inter-observer variability in mammography screening and effect of type and number of readers on screening outcome |
title_short | Inter-observer variability in mammography screening and effect of type and number of readers on screening outcome |
title_sort | inter-observer variability in mammography screening and effect of type and number of readers on screening outcome |
topic | Clinical Study |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2661777/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19259088 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6604954 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT duijmlem interobservervariabilityinmammographyscreeningandeffectoftypeandnumberofreadersonscreeningoutcome AT louwmanmwj interobservervariabilityinmammographyscreeningandeffectoftypeandnumberofreadersonscreeningoutcome AT groenewoudjh interobservervariabilityinmammographyscreeningandeffectoftypeandnumberofreadersonscreeningoutcome AT vandepollfranselv interobservervariabilityinmammographyscreeningandeffectoftypeandnumberofreadersonscreeningoutcome AT fracheboudj interobservervariabilityinmammographyscreeningandeffectoftypeandnumberofreadersonscreeningoutcome AT coeberghjw interobservervariabilityinmammographyscreeningandeffectoftypeandnumberofreadersonscreeningoutcome |