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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |