The more eyes, the better to see? From double to quadruple reading of screening mammograms

Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Volumn 99, Issue 15, 2007, Pages 1141-1143

  Elmore, Joann G ^a,c   Brenner, R James ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BREAST CANCER; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER SCREENING; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; EDITORIAL; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; HUMAN; MAMMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIODIAGNOSIS; RADIOLOGICAL TECHNOLOGIST; RADIOLOGIST; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UNITED STATES; BREAST TUMOR; EARLY DIAGNOSIS; EYE FIXATION; FEMALE; HABIT; HEALTH CARE PERSONNEL; HEALTH SERVICE; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; MANPOWER; MASS SCREENING; NOTE; OBSERVER VARIATION; OCULOGRAPHY; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PHYSICIAN; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; RADIOGRAPHY; RADIOLOGY; REPRODUCIBILITY; STATISTICS;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; EARLY DIAGNOSIS; EYE MOVEMENT MEASUREMENTS; FALSE NEGATIVE REACTIONS; FEMALE; FIXATION, OCULAR; HABITS; HEALTH PERSONNEL; HEALTH SERVICES NEEDS AND DEMAND; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; OBSERVER VARIATION; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PHYSICIANS; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; RADIOLOGY; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; TECHNOLOGY, RADIOLOGIC;

EID: 34547804263     PISSN: 00278874     EISSN: 14602105     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djm079     Document Type: Editorial

References (24)

1. Vainio H, Bianchini F. Breast cancer screening. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) handbooks of cancer prevention. Lyon (France): IARC Press; 2002.
2. Brenner RJ. False-negative mammograms. Medical, legal, and risk management implications. Radiol Clin North Am 2000;38:741-57.
3. Ikeda DM, Andersson I, Wattsgard C, Janzon L, Linell F. Interval carcinomas in the Malmo Mammographic Screening Trial: Radiographic appearance and prognostic considerations. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1992; 159:287-94.
4. Physician Insurers Association of America. Breast cancer study. 3rd ed. Washington (DC): Physician Insurers Association of America; 2002.
5. Nodine CF, Mello-Thoms C, Weinstein SP, Kundel HL, Conant EF, Heller-Savoy RE, et al. Blinded review of retrospectively visible unreported breast cancers: An eye-position analysis. Radiology 2001; 221:122-9.
6. Nodine CF, Mello-Thoms C, Kundel HL, Weinstein SP. Time course of perception and decision making during mammographic interpretation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;179:917-23.
7. Kan L, Olivotto IA, Warren Burhenne LJ, Sickles EA, Coldman AJ. Standardized abnormal interpretation and cancer detection ratios to assess reading volume and reader performance in a breast screening program. Radiology 2000;215:563-7.
8. Duijm LEM, Groenewoud JH, Fracheboud J, de Koning HJ. Additional double reading of screening mammograms by radiologic technologists: Impact on screening performance parameters. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007; 99:1162-70.
9. Beam CA, Layde PM, Sullivan DC. Variability in the interpretation of screening mammograms by US radiologists. Findings from a national sample. Arch Intern Med 1996;156:209-13.
10. Elmore J, Feinstein A. A bibliography of publications on observer variability. J Clin Epidemiol 1992;45:567-80.
11. Wormanns D, Ludwig K, Beyer F, Heindel W, Diederich S. Detection of pulmonary nodules at multirow-detector CT: Effectiveness of double reading to improve sensitivity at standard-dose and low-dose chest CT. Eur Radiol 2005;15:14-22.
12. Quekel LG, Goei R, Kessels AG, van Engelshoven JM. Detection of lung cancer on the chest radiograph: Impact of previous films, clinical information, double reading, and dual reading. J Clin Epidemiol 2001; 54:1146-50.
13. Taplin S, Rutter C, Elmore J, Seger D, White D, Brenner R. Accuracy of screening mammography using single versus independent double interpretation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000;174:1257-62.
14. Brainy quote. Larry Dixon quotes. Available at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/1/larrydixon185870.html. [Last accessed: June 19, 2007.]
15. Rosenberg RD, Yankaskas BC, Abraham LA, Sickles EA, Lehman CD, Geller BM, et al. Performance benchmarks for screening mammography. Radiology 2006;241:55-66.
16. Bassett LW, Monsees BS, Smith RA, Wang L, Hooshi P, Farria DM, et al. Survey of radiology residents: Breast imaging training and attitudes. Radiology 2003;227:862-9.
17. D'Orsi C, Tu SP, Nakano C, Carney PA, Abraham LA, Taplin SH, et al. Current realities of delivering mammography services in the community: do challenges with staffing and scheduling exist? Radiology 2005;235:391-5.
18. 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.
19. Fenton JJ, Taplin SH, Carney PA, Abraham L, Sickles EA, D'Orsi C, et al. Influence of computer-aided detection on performance of screening mammography. N Engl J Med 2007;356:1399-409.
20. Brenner RJ, Ulissey MJ, Wilt RM. Computer-aided detection as evidence in the courtroom: Potential implications of an appellate court's ruling. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006;186:48-51.
21. Hendrick RE, Cutter G, Berns E, Nakano C, Egger J, Carney P, et al. Community-based mammography practice: Services, charges, and interpretation methods. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;184:433-8.
22. Soffa DJ, Lewis RS, Sunshine JH, Bhargavan M. Disagreement in interpretation: A method for the development of benchmarks for quality assurance in imaging. J Am Coll Radiol 2004;1:212-7.
23. 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;177:543-9.
24. Schell MJ, Yankaskas BC, Ballard-Barbash R, Qaqish BF, Barlow WE, Rosenberg RD, et al. Evidence-based target recall rates for screening mammography. Radiology 2007;243:681-9.