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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Duijm, L E M, Louwman, M W J, Groenewoud, J H, van de Poll-Franse, L V, Fracheboud, J, Coebergh, J W
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