Impact of the number of readers on mammography interpretation

Acta Radiologica

Volumn 47, Issue 7, 2006, Pages 655-659

  Hukkinen, K ^a,c   Kivisaari, L ^b   Vehmas, T ^b  

^a HELSINKI UNIVERSITY CENTRAL HOSPITAL   (Finland)

^b FINNISH INSTITUTE OF OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH   (Finland)

^c NONE   (Finland)

Author keywords

Breast neoplasms; Breast radiography; Diagnosis; Observer performance

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; DIAGNOSIS; MAMMOGRAPHY; OPTIMIZATION; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; TUMORS;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; BREAST RADIOGRAPHY; OBSERVER PERFORMANCE;

IMAGE ANALYSIS;

ARTICLE; BREAST TUMOR; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; PREDICTION AND FORECASTING; RADIOGRAPHY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STANDARD; STATISTICS;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 33748481323     PISSN: 02841851     EISSN: 16000455     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02841850600803842     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Anttinen I, Pamilo M, Soiva M, Roiha M. Double reading of mammography screening films - one radiologist or two? Clin Radiol 1993;48:414-21.
2. Barlow WE, Chi C, Carney PA, Taplin SH, D'orsi C, Cutter G, et al. Accuracy of screening mammography interpretation by characteristics of radiologists. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004;96:1840-50.
3. Berg WA, Campassi C, Langenberg P, Sexton MJ. Breast imaging reporting and data system: inter- and intraobserver variability in feature analysis and final assessment. Am J Roentgenol 2000;174:1769-77.
4. Birdwell RL, Ikeda DM, O'Shaughnessy KF, Sickles EA. Mammographic characteristics of missed cancers later detected with screening mammography and the potential utility of computer-aided detection. Radiology 2001;219:192-202.
5. Ciatto S, Ambrogetti D, Risso S, Catarzi S, Morrone D, Mantellini P, et al. The role of arbitration of discordant reports at double reading of screening mammograms. J Med Screen 2005;12:125-7.
6. Dinnes J, Moss S, Melia J, Blanks R, Song F, Kleijnen J. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of double reading of mammograms in breast cancer screening: findings of a systematic review. Breast 2001;10:455-63.
7. Duijm LEM, Groenewoud JH, Hendriks JHCL, Koning HJ. Independent double-reading of screening mammograms in the Netherlands: effect of arbitration following reader disagreements. Radiology 2004;231:564-70.
8. Elmore JG, Wells CK, Lee CH, Howard DH, Feinstein AR. Variability in radiologists' interpretations of mammograms. N Eng J Med 1994;331:1493-9.
9. Gram IT, Funkhouser E, Tabar L. The Tabar classification of mammographic parenchymal patterns. Eur J Radiol 1997;24:131-6.
10. Harvey JA, Fajardo LL, Innis CA. Previous mammograms in patients with impalpable breast carcinoma: retrospective vs blinded interpretation. Am J Roentgenol 1993;161:1167-72.
11. Hukkinen K, Pamilo M. Does computer-aided detection assist in early diagnosis of breast cancer. Acta Radiol 2005;46:135-9.
12. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, Frankel SD, Ominsky SH, Sickles EA, et al. Variability and accuracy in mammographic interpretation using the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998;90:1801-9.
13. Nobrega FJ, Duijm LEM, Groenewoud JH. Independent double reading of screening mammograms in the Netherlands: impact of additional double reading by screening mammography. Vienna: ECR; 2006.
14. Saarenmaa I, Salminen T, Geiger U, Holli K, Isola J, Kärkkäinen A, et al. The visibility of cancer on earlier mammograms in a population-based screening programme. Eur J Cancer 1999;35:1118-22.
15. Taplin SH, Rutter CM, Elmore JG, Seger D, White D, Brenner JR. Accuracy of screening mammography using single versus independent double interpretation. Am J Roentgenol 2000;174:1257-62.
16. Thurfjell EL, Lernevall KA, Taube AAS. Benefit of independent double reading in a population based mammography screening program. Radiology 1994;193:241-4.
17. Warren Burhenne LJ, Wood SA, D'Orsi CJ, Feig SA, Kopans DB, O'Shaughnessy KF, et al. Potential contribution of computer-aided detection to the sensitivity of screening mammography. Radiology 2000;215:554-62.