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....

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Coolen, Angela M. P., Voogd, Adri C., Strobbe, Luc J., Louwman, Marieke W. J., Tjan-Heijnen, Vivianne C. G., Duijm, Lucien E. M.
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