Cargando…

Comparison of the diagnostic workup of women referred at non-blinded or blinded double reading in a population-based screening mammography programme in the south of the Netherlands

BACKGROUND: To determine whether referred women experience differences in diagnostic workup at non-blinded or blinded double reading of screening mammograms. METHODS: We included a consecutive series of respectively 42.996 and 44.491 screens, double read either in a non-blinded or blinded manner bet...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Weber, Roy J P, Klompenhouwer, Elisabeth G, Voogd, Adri C, Strobbe, Luc J A, Broeders, Mireille J M, Duijm, Lucien E M
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4651120/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26284336
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2015.295
_version_ 1782401602781446144
author Weber, Roy J P
Klompenhouwer, Elisabeth G
Voogd, Adri C
Strobbe, Luc J A
Broeders, Mireille J M
Duijm, Lucien E M
author_facet Weber, Roy J P
Klompenhouwer, Elisabeth G
Voogd, Adri C
Strobbe, Luc J A
Broeders, Mireille J M
Duijm, Lucien E M
author_sort Weber, Roy J P
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: To determine whether referred women experience differences in diagnostic workup at non-blinded or blinded double reading of screening mammograms. METHODS: We included a consecutive series of respectively 42.996 and 44.491 screens, double read either in a non-blinded or blinded manner between 2009 and 2011. This reading strategy was alternated on a monthly basis. RESULTS: The overall ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy (CNB) rate and stereotactic CNB (SCNB) rate per 1000 screens were higher at blinded than at non-blinded reading (7.5 vs 6.0, P=0.008 and 8.1 vs 6.6, P=0.009). Among women with benign workup, these rates were higher at blinded reading (2.6 vs 1.4, P<0.001 and 5.9 vs 4.7, P=0.013). The benign biopsy rates were higher at blinded double reading (P<0.001), whereas the positive predictive value of biopsy did not differ (P=0.103). CONCLUSIONS: Blinded double-reading results in higher overall CNB and SCNB rates than non-blinded double reading, as well as a higher benign biopsy rate.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4651120
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Nature Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-46511202016-09-29 Comparison of the diagnostic workup of women referred at non-blinded or blinded double reading in a population-based screening mammography programme in the south of the Netherlands Weber, Roy J P Klompenhouwer, Elisabeth G Voogd, Adri C Strobbe, Luc J A Broeders, Mireille J M Duijm, Lucien E M Br J Cancer Epidemiology BACKGROUND: To determine whether referred women experience differences in diagnostic workup at non-blinded or blinded double reading of screening mammograms. METHODS: We included a consecutive series of respectively 42.996 and 44.491 screens, double read either in a non-blinded or blinded manner between 2009 and 2011. This reading strategy was alternated on a monthly basis. RESULTS: The overall ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy (CNB) rate and stereotactic CNB (SCNB) rate per 1000 screens were higher at blinded than at non-blinded reading (7.5 vs 6.0, P=0.008 and 8.1 vs 6.6, P=0.009). Among women with benign workup, these rates were higher at blinded reading (2.6 vs 1.4, P<0.001 and 5.9 vs 4.7, P=0.013). The benign biopsy rates were higher at blinded double reading (P<0.001), whereas the positive predictive value of biopsy did not differ (P=0.103). CONCLUSIONS: Blinded double-reading results in higher overall CNB and SCNB rates than non-blinded double reading, as well as a higher benign biopsy rate. Nature Publishing Group 2015-09-29 2015-08-18 /pmc/articles/PMC4651120/ /pubmed/26284336 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2015.295 Text en Copyright © 2015 Cancer Research UK http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ From twelve months after its original publication, this work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
spellingShingle Epidemiology
Weber, Roy J P
Klompenhouwer, Elisabeth G
Voogd, Adri C
Strobbe, Luc J A
Broeders, Mireille J M
Duijm, Lucien E M
Comparison of the diagnostic workup of women referred at non-blinded or blinded double reading in a population-based screening mammography programme in the south of the Netherlands
title Comparison of the diagnostic workup of women referred at non-blinded or blinded double reading in a population-based screening mammography programme in the south of the Netherlands
title_full Comparison of the diagnostic workup of women referred at non-blinded or blinded double reading in a population-based screening mammography programme in the south of the Netherlands
title_fullStr Comparison of the diagnostic workup of women referred at non-blinded or blinded double reading in a population-based screening mammography programme in the south of the Netherlands
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of the diagnostic workup of women referred at non-blinded or blinded double reading in a population-based screening mammography programme in the south of the Netherlands
title_short Comparison of the diagnostic workup of women referred at non-blinded or blinded double reading in a population-based screening mammography programme in the south of the Netherlands
title_sort comparison of the diagnostic workup of women referred at non-blinded or blinded double reading in a population-based screening mammography programme in the south of the netherlands
topic Epidemiology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4651120/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26284336
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2015.295
work_keys_str_mv AT weberroyjp comparisonofthediagnosticworkupofwomenreferredatnonblindedorblindeddoublereadinginapopulationbasedscreeningmammographyprogrammeinthesouthofthenetherlands
AT klompenhouwerelisabethg comparisonofthediagnosticworkupofwomenreferredatnonblindedorblindeddoublereadinginapopulationbasedscreeningmammographyprogrammeinthesouthofthenetherlands
AT voogdadric comparisonofthediagnosticworkupofwomenreferredatnonblindedorblindeddoublereadinginapopulationbasedscreeningmammographyprogrammeinthesouthofthenetherlands
AT strobbelucja comparisonofthediagnosticworkupofwomenreferredatnonblindedorblindeddoublereadinginapopulationbasedscreeningmammographyprogrammeinthesouthofthenetherlands
AT broedersmireillejm comparisonofthediagnosticworkupofwomenreferredatnonblindedorblindeddoublereadinginapopulationbasedscreeningmammographyprogrammeinthesouthofthenetherlands
AT duijmlucienem comparisonofthediagnosticworkupofwomenreferredatnonblindedorblindeddoublereadinginapopulationbasedscreeningmammographyprogrammeinthesouthofthenetherlands