Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Br J Cancer. 2018 Aug;119(4):503-507. doi: 10.1038/s41416-018-0195-6. Epub 2018 Jul 24.

Impact of the second reader on screening outcome at blinded double reading of digital screening mammograms.

Author information

1
Department of Radiology, Elisabeth-Tweesteden Hospital (ETZ), PO Box 90151, 5000 LC, Tilburg, The Netherlands. a.coolen88@hotmail.com.
2
Department of Epidemiology, GROW, Maastricht University, P Debyelaan 1, 6229 HA, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
3
Department of Research, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization (IKNL), PO Box 19079, 3501 DB, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
4
Department of Surgery, Canisius-Wilhelmina Hospital, PO Box 9015, 6500 GS, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
5
Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, GROW, Maastricht University Medical Centre, P Debyelaan 25, 6229 HX, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
6
Department of Radiology, Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital, Weg door Jonkerbos 100, 6532 SZ, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
7
Dutch Expert Centre for Screening, Wijchenseweg 101, 6538 SW, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

To determine the impact of the second reader on screening outcome at blinded double reading of digital screening mammograms.

METHODS:

We included a consecutive series of 99,013 digital screening mammograms, obtained between July 2013 and January 2015 and double read in a blinded fashion. During 2-year follow-up, we collected radiology, surgery and pathology reports of recalled women.

RESULTS:

Single reading resulted in 2928 recalls and 616 screen-detected cancers (SDCs). The second reader recalled another 612 women, resulting in 82 additional SDCs. Addition of the second reader increased the recall rate (3.0% to 3.6%, p < 0.001), cancer detection rate (6.2-7.0 per 1000 screens, p < 0.001) and false positive recall rate (24.4-28.7 per 1000 screens, p < 0.001). Positive predictive value of recall (21.0% vs. 19.7%, p = 0.20) and of biopsy (52.1% vs. 50.9%, p = 0.56) were comparable for single reading and blinded double reading. Tumour characteristics were comparable for cancers detected by the first reader and cancers additionally detected by the second reader, except of a more favourable tumour grade in the latter group.

CONCLUSIONS:

At blinded double reading, the second reader significantly increases the cancer detection rate, at the expense of an increased recall rate and false positive recall rate.

PMID:
30038325
DOI:
10.1038/s41416-018-0195-6

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Nature Publishing Group
Loading ...
Support Center