Performance of double reading mammography in an Iranian population and its effect on patient outcome

Iranian Journal of Radiology

Volumn 10, Issue 2, 2013, Pages

  Moradi, Maryam ^a   Ganji, Kobra ^b   Teyfouri, Niloufar ^c   Kolahdoozan, Farzaneh ^c  

^a ISFAHAN UNIVERSITY OF MEDICAL SCIENCES   (Iran)

^b Atieh Imaging Center   (Iran)

^c ISFAHAN UNIVERSITY OF MEDICAL SCIENCES   (Iran)

Author keywords

Double reading; Mammography; Recall rate

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; BREAST IMAGING REPORTING AND DATA SYSTEM; BREAST TUMOR; CONTROLLED STUDY; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; DENSITY; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; DOUBLE READING MAMMOGRAPHY; ETHNIC GROUP; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IRANIAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MAMMOGRAPHY SYSTEM; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM; RATING SCALE;

EID: 84878344109     PISSN: 17351065     EISSN: 20082711     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5812/iranjradiol.11729     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Harirchi I, Kolahdoozan S, Karbakhsh M, Chegini N, Mohseni SM, Montazeri A, et al. Twenty years of breast cancer in Iran: downstaging without a formal screening program. Ann Oncol. 2011;22(1):93-7
2. Mousavi SM, Harirchi I, Ebrahimi M, Mohagheghi MA, Montazeri A, Jarrahi AM, et al. Screening for breast cancer in Iran: a chal-lenge for health policy makers. Breast J. 2008;14(6):605-6
3. Ciatto S, Ambrogetti D, Risso G, Catarzi S, Morrone D, Mantellini P, et al. The role of arbitration of discordant reports at double read-ing of screening mammograms. J Med Screen. 2005;12(3):125-7
4. Brancato B, Ciatto S, Bricolo D, Bonardi R, Ambrogetti D, Zappa M, et al. [The assessment of the impact of a double reading by expert readers in a mass mammographic study]. Radiol Med. 2000;100(1-2):21-3
5. Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C, Tornberg S, Holland R, von Karsa L. European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth edition--summary document. Ann Oncol. 2008;19(4):614-22
6. Williams LJ, Hartswood M, Prescott RJ. Methodological is-sues in mammography double reading studies. J Med Screen. 1998;5(4):202-6
7. Caumo F, Brunelli S, Zorzi M, Baglio I, Ciatto S, Montemezzi S. Ben-efits of double reading of screening mammograms: retrospec-tive study on a consecutive series. Radiol Med. 2011;116(4):575-83
8. Hofvind S, Geller BM, Rosenberg RD, Skaane P. Screening-detected breast cancers: discordant independent double reading in a pop-ulation-based screening program. Radiology. 2009;253(3):652-60
9. Ciatto S, Ambrogetti D, Bonardi R, Catarzi S, Risso G, Rosselli Del Turco M, et al. Second reading of screening mammograms in-screening programme. J Med Screen. 2005;12(2):103-6
10. Anderson ED, Muir BB, Walsh JS, Kirkpatrick AE. The efficacy of double reading mammograms in breast screening. Clin Radiol. 1994;49(4):248-51
11. Kopans DB. Double Reading. Radiol Clin North Am. 2000;38(4):719-724
12. Kwek BH, Lau TN, Ng FC, Gao F. Non-consensual double reading in the Singapore Breast Screening Project: benefits and limitations. Ann Acad Med Singapore. 2003;32(4):438-41
13. Ciatto S, Del Turco MR, Morrone D, Catarzi S, Ambrogetti D, Cariddi A, et al. Independent double reading of screening mam-mograms. J Med Screen. 1995;2(2):99-101
14. Leivo T, Salminen T, Sintonen H, Tuominen R, Auerma K, Par-tanen K, et al. Incremental cost-effectiveness of double-reading mammograms. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1999;54(3):261-7
15. 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):455-63
16. Guiti M, Azizian AR, Riyahi Alam N, Shakiba M. The diagnostic accuracy of digitized mammography. Iran J Radiol. 2008;5(2):71-7
17. American College of Radiology. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. 4th ed. Reston VA: American College of Radiology; 2003.
18. D'Orsi CJ, Newell MS. BI-RADS decoded: detailed guidance on po-tentially confusing issues. Radiol Clin North Am. 2007;45(5):751-63
19. 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(3):681-9
20. Duijm LE, Groenewoud JH, Fracheboud J, de Koning HJ. Addi-tional double reading of screening mammograms by radiologic technologists: impact on screening performance parameters. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99(15):1162-70
21. Berg WA, Campassi C, Langenberg P, Sexton MJ. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: inter-and intraobserver variability in feature analysis and final assessment. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000;174(6):1769-77
22. Ciatto S, Houssami N, Apruzzese A, Bassetti E, Brancato B, Caro-zzi F, et al. Categorizing breast mammographic density: intra-and interobserver reproducibility of BI-RADS density catego-ries. Breast. 2005;14(4):269-75
23. Ooms EA, Zonderland HM, Eijkemans MJ, Kriege M, Mahdavian Delavary B, Burger CW, et al. Mammography: interobserver vari-ability in breast density assessment. Breast. 2007;16(6):568-76
24. Ciatto S, Ambrogetti D, Collini G, Cruciani A, Ercolini E, Risso G, et al. Computer-aided detection (CAD) of cancers detected on double reading by one reader only. Breast. 2006;15(4):528-32
25. 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. Clin Radiol. 2005;60(11):1182-7
26. Thurfjell EL, Lernevall KA, Taube AA. Benefit of independent double reading in a population-based mammography screen-ing program. Radiology. 1994;191(1):241-4
27. Warren RM, Duffy SW. Comparison of single reading with dou-ble reading of mammograms, and change in effectiveness with experience. Br J Radiol. 1995;68(813):958-62
28. Beam CA, Sullivan DC, Layde PM. Effect of human variability on independent double reading in screening mammography. Acad Radiol. 1996;3(11):891-7