Increase in cancer detection and recall rates with independent double interpretation of screening mammography

被引:79
作者
Harvey, SC
Geller, B
Oppenheimer, RG
Pinet, M
Riddell, L
Garra, B
机构
[1] Univ Vermont, Coll Med, Burlington, VT 05401 USA
[2] Univ Vermont, Off Hlth Promot Res, Burlington, VT 05401 USA
关键词
D O I
10.2214/ajr.180.5.1801461
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
OBJECTIVE. This study reports the increase in cancer detection that resulted from independent double interpretation of screening mammography. Although screening mammography is used to detect occult breast cancer, its sensitivity and specificity are limited. Double interpretation of screening mammograms is one proven method used to improve detection, with studies reporting a 5-15% increase in cancer detection. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Two radiologists independently double-interpreted 25,369 screening mammograms performed from November 1998 to April 2000. The second reviewer could add but could not delete recalls. The subsequent additional diagnostic imaging was performed in the same way whether generated from the first or the second reviewer. The outcome of each case was determined. The cancer detection rate and sensitivity are reported. RESULTS. Double interpretation of screening mammograms detected 143 breast malignancies. The second reviewer found nine (6.3%) of 143 cancers and all except one were stage 0 or 1. The sensitivity increased from 74.4% to 79.4% with double interpretation. The second reviewer contributed 371 of the 3591 total recalls, increasing the absolute rate of recalls by 1.5% (371/25,369) and the relative rate by 11.5% (371/3220). Six hundred seventy-two total biopsies were performed; 38 were generated by the second interpretation. CONCLUSION. The relative increase in cancer detection as a result of the second reviewer is 6.3%, similar to the 5-15% reported in the literature. All but one of the nine additional cancers detected were in the early stages.
引用
收藏
页码:1461 / 1467
页数:7
相关论文
共 27 条
[1]   THE EFFICACY OF DOUBLE READING MAMMOGRAMS IN BREAST SCREENING [J].
ANDERSON, EDC ;
MUIR, BB ;
WALSH, JS ;
KIRKPATRICK, AE .
CLINICAL RADIOLOGY, 1994, 49 (04) :248-251
[2]  
[Anonymous], BREAST IM REP DAT SY
[3]   DOUBLE READING OF MAMMOGRAPHY SCREENING FILMS - ONE RADIOLOGIST OR 2 [J].
ANTTINEN, I ;
PAMILO, M ;
SOIVA, M ;
ROIHA, M .
CLINICAL RADIOLOGY, 1993, 48 (06) :414-421
[4]   Breast cancer surveillance consortium: A national mammography screening and outcomes database [J].
BallardBarbash, R ;
Taplin, SH ;
Yankaskas, BC ;
Ernster, VL ;
Rosenberg, RD ;
Carney, PA ;
Barlow, WE ;
Geller, BM ;
Kerlikowske, K ;
Edwards, BK ;
Lynch, CF ;
Urban, N ;
Key, CR ;
Poplack, SP ;
Worden, JK ;
Kessler, LG .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 1997, 169 (04) :1001-1008
[5]   Effect of human variability on independent double: Reading in screening mammography [J].
Beam, CA ;
Sullivan, DC ;
Layde, PM .
ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY, 1996, 3 (11) :891-897
[6]   The missed breast cancer: Perceptions and realities [J].
Berlin, L .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 1999, 173 (05) :1161-+
[7]   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 National Health Service breast screening programme [J].
Blanks, RG ;
Wallis, MG ;
Moss, SM .
JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCREENING, 1998, 5 (04) :195-201
[8]   THE COSTS OF TREATING BREAST-CANCER IN AUSTRALIA AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR BREAST-CANCER SCREENING [J].
BUTLER, JRG ;
FURNIVAL, CM ;
HART, RFG .
AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 1995, 65 (07) :485-491
[9]  
Ciatto S, 1995, J Med Screen, V2, P99
[10]  
Elixhauser A, 1991, Int J Technol Assess Health Care, V7, P604