Independent Double Reading of Screening Mammograms in the Netherlands: Effect of Arbitration Following Reader Disagreements

Radiology

Volumn 231, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 564-570

  Duijm, Lucien E M ^a   Groenewoud, Johanna H ^b   Hendriks, Jan H C L ^c   De Koning, Harry J ^b  

^a CATHARINA HOSPITAL   (Netherlands)

^b ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^c RADBOUD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Breast neoplasms; Breast raciography; Breast raciography, quality assurance; Cancer screening; Diagnostic radiology, observer performance

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER SCREENING; CONSENSUS; DECISION MAKING; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; NETHERLANDS; OBSERVER VARIATION; PATIENT REFERRAL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; SCREENING TEST;

AGED; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; NEGOTIATING; NETHERLANDS; OBSERVER VARIATION; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES;

EID: 2142752432     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2312030665     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Lee CH. Screening mammography: proven benefit, continued controversy. Radiol Clin North Am 2002; 40:395-407.
2. Duffy SW, Tabar L, Chen HH, et al. The impact of organized mammography service screening on breast carcinoma mortality in seven Swedish counties. Cancer 2002; 95:458-469.
3. Humphrey LL, Helfand M, Chan BK, Woolf SH. Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2002; 137:347-360.
4. de Koning HJ, Boer R, Warmerdam PG, Beemsterboer PM, van der Maas PJ. Quantitative interpretation of age-specific mortality reductions from the Swedish breast cancer screening trials. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995; 87:1217-1223.
5. Fracheboud J, de Koning HJ, Beemsterboer PM, et al. Nation-wide breast cancer screening in the Netherlands: results of initial and subsequent screening 1990-1995. Int J Cancer 1998; 75:694-698.
6. Maes RM, Dronkers DJ, Hendriks JH, Thijssen MA, Nab HW. Do non-specific minimal signs in a biennial mammographic breast cancer screening programme need further diagnostic assessment? Br J Radiol 1997; 70:34-38.
7. Fracheboud J, de Koning HJ, Beemsterboer PM, et al. Interval cancers in the Dutch breast cancer screening programme. Br J Cancer 1999; 81:912-917.
8. Fracheboud J, de Koning HJ, Boer R, et al. Nationwide breast cancer screening programme fully implemented in the Netherlands. Breast 2001; 10:6-11.
9. National Evaluation Team for Breast Cancer Screening. National evaluation of breast cancer screening in the Netherlands (VI). Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Department of Public Health, Erasmus University Rotterdam, 2001; 15-26. [Dutch]
10. Moskowitz M. Retrospective reviews of breast cancer screening: what do we really learn from them? Radiology 1996; 199:615-620.
11. Autier P, Shannoun F, Scharpantgen A, et al. A breast cancer screening programme operating in a liberal health care system: the Luxembourg Mammography Programme, 1992-1997. Int J Cancer 2002; 97:828-832.
12. Vejborg I, Olsen AH, Jensen MB, Rank F, Tange UB, Lynge E. Early outcome of mammography screening in Copenhagen 1991-1999. J Med Screen 2002; 9:115-119.
13. Yankaskas BC, Cleveland RJ, Schell MJ, Kozar R. Association of recall rates with sensitivity and positive predictive values of screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001; 177:543-549.
14. Burnside ES, Sickles EA, Sohlich RE, Dee KE. Differential value of comparison with previous examinations of diagnostic versus screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002; 179:1173-1177.
15. Kopans DB. Double reading. Radiol Clin North Am 2000; 38:719-724.
16. McCann J, Stockton D, Godward S. Impact of false-positive mammography on subsequent screening attendance and risk of cancer. Breast Cancer Res 2002; 4:R11.
17. Burman ML, Taplin SH, Herta DF, Elmore JG. Effect of false-positive mammograms on interval breast cancer screening in a health maintenance organization. Ann Intern Med 1999; 131:1-6.
18. Pinckney RG, Geller BM, Burman M, Littenberg B. Effect of false-positive mammograms on return for subsequent screening mammography. Am J Med 2003; 114:120-125.
19. Shapiro S, Coleman EA, Broeders M, et al. Breast cancer screening programmes in 22 countries: current policies, administration and guidelines. Int J Epidemiol 1998; 27:735-742.
20. Beam CA, Conant EF, Sickles EA. Association of volume and volume-independent factors with accuracy in screening mammogram interpretation. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003; 95:282-290.
21. Johnston K, Brown J. Two view mammography at incident screens: cost effectiveness analysis of policy options. BMJ 1999; 319:1097-1102.
22. Blanks RG, Wallis MG, Moss SM. A comparison of cancer detection rates achieved by breast cancer screening programmes by number of readers, for one and two view mammography: results from the UK National Health Service breast screening programme. J Med Screen 1998; 5:195-201.
23. Blanks RG, Wallis MG, Given-Wilson RM. Observer variability in cancer detection during routine (incident) mammographic screening in a study of two versus one view mammography. J Med Screen 1999; 6:152-158.
24. Frankel SD, Sickles EA, Curpen BN, Sollitto RA, Ominsky SH, Galvin HB. Initial versus subsequent screening mammography: comparison of findings and their prognostic significance. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1995; 164:1107-1109.
25. de Koning HJ, van Ineveld BM, van Oortmarssen GJ, et al. Breast cancer screening and cost-effectiveness; policy alternatives, quality of life considerations and the possible impact of uncertain factors. Int J Cancer 1991; 49:531-537.
26. Nystrom L, Andersson I, Bjurstam N, Frisell J, Nordenskjold B, Rutqvist LE. Long-term effects of mammography screening: updated overview of the Swedish randomised trials. Lancet 2002; 359:909-919.
27. Hunt KA, Rosen EL, Sickles EA. Outcome analysis for women undergoing annual versus biennial screening mammography: a review of 24,211 examinations. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1999; 173:285-289.
28. Schouten LJ, de Rijke JM, Huveneers JA, Verbeek AL. Rising incidence of breast cancer after completion of the first prevalent round of the breast cancer screening programme. J Med Screen 2002; 9:120-124.