Cancers detected at over-reading: Analysis of data from the Loire-Atlantic breast cancer screening program, 2003-2005 (update);Cancers détectés par le deuxième lecteur: Analyse des données de la campagne de dépistage du cancer du sein en Loire-Atlantique, 2003-2005 (nouveau cahier des charges)

Journal de Radiologie

Volumn 88, Issue 12, 2007, Pages 1873-1880

  Doutriaux Dumoulin, I ^a   Allioux, A ^b   Campion, L ^a   Meingan, P ^a   Molina, L ^a  

^a CENTRE RENÉ GAUDUCHEAU   (France)

^b Dépistage Organisé du Cancer du Sein de Loire Atlantique   (France)

Author keywords

Breast cancer; Mammography; Over read; Screening

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER CLASSIFICATION; CANCER CYTODIAGNOSIS; CANCER SCREENING; CLINICAL FEATURE; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; FEMALE; HEALTH PROGRAM; HUMAN; MAMMOGRAPHY; REFERENCE DATABASE; SCREENING TEST;

EID: 38149020012     PISSN: 02210363     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0221-0363(07)78365-8     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Cahier des charges pour les radiologues. J Radiol 2006;87:1S27-46.
2. Ciatto S, Ambrogetti, Bonardi R, Catarzi S, Risso G, Rosselli Del Turco M, et al. Second reading of screening mammograms increases cancer detection and recall rates. Results in the Florence screening programme. J of Med Screen 2005;12:103-6.
3. Harvey SC, Geller B, Oppenheimer RG, Pinet M, Riddell L, Garra B. Increase in Cancer Detection and Recall Rates with Independent Double Interpretation of Screening Mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;180:1461-7.
4. Kopans DB. Double reading. Radiol Clin North Am 2000;38:719-24.
5. Séradour B, Wait S, Jacquemier J, Dubuc M, Piana L. Modalités de lecture des mammographies de dépistage du programme des bouches-du-Rhône. Résultats et coûts 1990-1995. J Radiol 1997;78:49-54.
6. Thurfjell EL, Lernevall KA, Taube A. Benefit of independent double reading in a population-based mammography screening program. Radiology 1994;19:241-4.
7. Paty AC, Ancelle-Park R, Julien M, Bloch J et les coordonnateurs départementaux. Programme de dépistage du cancer du sein en France : Résultats 2004. InVS Août 2006.
8. Séradour B, Ancelle-Park R. Dépistage Organisé des cancers du sein : peut-on comparer les résultats du programme français aux résultats internationaux ? J Radiol 2006;87:1009-14.
9. Dinnes J, Moss S, Melia J, Blanks, Song F, Kleijnen J. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of double reading of mammograms in breast cancer screening: findings of a systematic review. The Breast 2001;10: 55-463.
10. Elmore JG, Wells CK, Lee CH, Howard DH, Feinstein AR. Variability in radiologist interpretation of mammograms. N Engl J Med 1994;331:1493-9.
11. Cornford EJ, Evans AJ, James JJ, Burrell HC, Pinder SE, Wilson AR. The pathological and radiological features of screen-detected breast cancers diagnosed following arbitration of discordant double reading opinions. Clinical Radiol 2005;60:1182-7.
12. Ciatto S, Houssami N, Ambrogetti D, Bonardi R, Collini G, Del Turco MR. Minority report-false negative breast assessement in women recalled for suspicious screening mammography: imaging and pathological features and associated delay in diagnosis; Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2006 (abstract).
13. Goergen SK, Evans J, Cohen GP, MacMillan JH. Characteristics of breast carcinomas missed by screening radiologists. Radiology 1997;204:131-5.
14. Bird RE, Terry WW, Bonnie CY. Analysis of cancers missed at screening mammography. Radiology 1992;184:613-7.
15. Roelofs A, Karssemeijer N, Wedekind N, Beck C, van Woudenberg S, Snoeren PR. Importance of comparaison of current and prior mammograms in breast cancer screening; Radiology 2007;242:71-7.
16. e journées SFSPM. Lille novembre 2006.