Consensus review of discordant findings maximizes cancer detection rate in double-reader screening mammography: Irish national breast screening program experience

Radiology

Volumn 250, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 354-362

  Shaw, Colette M ^a   Flanagan, Fidemal ^a   Fenlon, Helen M ^a   McNicholas, Michelle M ^a  

^a MATER MISERICORDIAE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Ireland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST EXAMINATION; CANCER INVASION; CANCER SCREENING; CONSENSUS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; FALSE NEGATIVE RESULT; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; INTRADUCTAL CARCINOMA; MAMMOGRAPHY; PATIENT REFERRAL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SAFETY; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; BREAST TUMOR; FEMALE; INCIDENCE; IRELAND; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; PREDICTION AND FORECASTING; PUBLIC HEALTH; RADIOGRAPHY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STATISTICS;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; CONSENSUS; FALSE NEGATIVE REACTIONS; FALSE POSITIVE REACTIONS; FEMALE; HUMANS; INCIDENCE; IRELAND; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; NATIONAL HEALTH PROGRAMS; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 61749085748     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2502080224     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. National Cancer Registry. Women and Cancer in Ireland 1994-2001. Cork, Ireland: National Cancer Registry, 2006; 15-25.
2. BreastCheck. Guidelines for quality assurance in mammography screening. 2nd ed. Dublin, Ireland: The National Breast Screening Board, 2003.
3. Perry NM, Broeders M, de Wolf C, Tornberg S, Holland R, von Karsa L. European guidelines for quality assurance in the breast cancer screening and diagnosis. 4th ed. Luxembourg, Belgium: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2006.
4. Leung JW, Margolin FR, Dee KE, Jacobs RP, Denny SR, Schrumpf JD. Performance parameters for screening and diagnostic mammography in a community practice: are there differences between specialists and general radiologists? AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;188(1):236-241.
5. Liston JC, Dall BJ. Can the NHS breast screening programme afford not to double read screening mammograms? Clin Radiol 2003;58(6):474-477.
6. Denton ER, Field S. Just how valuable is double reporting in screening mammography? Clin Radiol 1997;52(6):466-468.
7. Seradour B, Wait S, Jacquemier J, Dubuc M. Dual reading in a non-specialized breast cancer screening programme. Breast 1996;5(6): 398-403.
8. Anderson ED, Muir BB, Walsh JS, Kirkpatrick AE. The efficacy of double reading mammograms in breast screening. Clin Radiol 1994;49(4):248-2S1.
9. Thurfjell EL, Lernevall KA, Taube AA. Benefit of independent double reading in a population-based mammography screening program. Radiology 1994;191(l):241-244.
10. Brown J, Bryan S, Warren R. Mammography screening: an incremental cost effectiveness analysis of double versus single reading of mammograms. BMJ 1996;312(7034): 809-812.
11. Warren RM, Duffy SW. Comparison of single reading with double reading of mammograms, and change in effectiveness with experience. Br J Radiol 1995;68(813):958-962.
12. Anttinen I, Pamilo M, Soiva M, Roiha M. Double reading of mammography screening films: one radiologist or two? Clin Radiol 1993;48(6):414-421.
13. Ciatto S, Ambrogetti D, Bonardi R, et al. Second reading of screening mammograms increases cancer detection and recall rates: results in the Florence screening programme. J Med Screen 2005;12(2):103-106.
14. 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(6):455-463.
15. 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 NHS Breast Screening Programme. J Med Screen 1998;5(4):195-201.
16. Johnston K, Brown J. Two view mammography at incident screens: cost effectiveness analysis of policy options. BM J 1999;319(7217):1097-1102.
17. Blanks RG, Bennett RL, Patnick J, Cush S, Davison C, Moss SM. The effect of changing from one to two views at incident (subsequent) screens in the NHS breast screening programme in England: impact on cancer detection and recall rates. Clin Radiol 2005;60(6):674-680.
18. 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(5):1107-1109.
19. Roelofs AA, Karssemeijer N, Wedekind N, et al. Importance of comparison of current and prior mammograms in breast cancer screening. Radiology 2007;242(1):70-77.
20. Burnside ES, Park JM, Fine JP, Sisney GA. The use of batch reading to improve the performance of screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;185(3):790-796.
21. Blanks RG, Moss SM, Wallis MG. Monitoring and evaluating the UK National Health Service Breast Screening Programme: evaluating the variation in radiological performance between individual programmes using PPV-referral diagrams. J Med Screen 2001;8(l):24-28.
22. Ciatto S, Ambrogetti D, Risso G, et al. The role of arbitration of discordant reports at double reading of screening mammograms. J Med Screen 2005;12(3):125-127.
23. Duijm LE, Groenewoud JH, Hendriks JH, et al. Independent double reading of screening mammograms in the Netherlands: effect of arbitration following reader disagreements. Radiology 2004;231(2):564-570.
24. Matcham NJ, Ridley NT, Taylor SJ, Cook JL, Scolding J. Breast screening: the use of consensus opinion for all recalls. Breast 2004; 13(3):184-187.
25. Groenewoud JH, Otten JD, Fracheboud J, et al. Cost-effectiveness of different reading and referral strategies in mammography screening in the Netherlands. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2007;102(2):211-218.
26. Otten JD, Karssemeijer N, Hendriks JH, et al. Effect of recall rate on earlier screen detection of breast cancers based on the Dutch performance indicators. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005;97(10):748-754.