Cargando…
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....
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Nature Publishing Group UK
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6134129/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30038325 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41416-018-0195-6 |
_version_ | 1783354620229189632 |
---|---|
author | Coolen, Angela M. P. Voogd, Adri C. Strobbe, Luc J. Louwman, Marieke W. J. Tjan-Heijnen, Vivianne C. G. Duijm, Lucien E. M. |
author_facet | Coolen, Angela M. P. Voogd, Adri C. Strobbe, Luc J. Louwman, Marieke W. J. Tjan-Heijnen, Vivianne C. G. Duijm, Lucien E. M. |
author_sort | Coolen, Angela M. P. |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6134129 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | Nature Publishing Group UK |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-61341292019-08-14 Impact of the second reader on screening outcome at blinded double reading of digital screening mammograms Coolen, Angela M. P. Voogd, Adri C. Strobbe, Luc J. Louwman, Marieke W. J. Tjan-Heijnen, Vivianne C. G. Duijm, Lucien E. M. Br J Cancer Article 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. Nature Publishing Group UK 2018-07-24 2018-08-14 /pmc/articles/PMC6134129/ /pubmed/30038325 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41416-018-0195-6 Text en © Cancer Research UK 2018 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This work is published under the standard license to publish agreement. After 12 months the work will become freely available and the license terms will switch to a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0). |
spellingShingle | Article Coolen, Angela M. P. Voogd, Adri C. Strobbe, Luc J. Louwman, Marieke W. J. Tjan-Heijnen, Vivianne C. G. Duijm, Lucien E. M. Impact of the second reader on screening outcome at blinded double reading of digital screening mammograms |
title | Impact of the second reader on screening outcome at blinded double reading of digital screening mammograms |
title_full | Impact of the second reader on screening outcome at blinded double reading of digital screening mammograms |
title_fullStr | Impact of the second reader on screening outcome at blinded double reading of digital screening mammograms |
title_full_unstemmed | Impact of the second reader on screening outcome at blinded double reading of digital screening mammograms |
title_short | Impact of the second reader on screening outcome at blinded double reading of digital screening mammograms |
title_sort | impact of the second reader on screening outcome at blinded double reading of digital screening mammograms |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6134129/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30038325 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41416-018-0195-6 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT coolenangelamp impactofthesecondreaderonscreeningoutcomeatblindeddoublereadingofdigitalscreeningmammograms AT voogdadric impactofthesecondreaderonscreeningoutcomeatblindeddoublereadingofdigitalscreeningmammograms AT strobbelucj impactofthesecondreaderonscreeningoutcomeatblindeddoublereadingofdigitalscreeningmammograms AT louwmanmariekewj impactofthesecondreaderonscreeningoutcomeatblindeddoublereadingofdigitalscreeningmammograms AT tjanheijnenviviannecg impactofthesecondreaderonscreeningoutcomeatblindeddoublereadingofdigitalscreeningmammograms AT duijmlucienem impactofthesecondreaderonscreeningoutcomeatblindeddoublereadingofdigitalscreeningmammograms |