Screen-detected and interval breast cancer after concordant and discordant interpretations in a population based screening program using independent double reading

Abstract

ObjectivesTo analyze rates, odds ratios (OR), and characteristics of screen-detected and interval cancers after concordant and discordant initial interpretations and consensus in a population-based screening program.MethodsData were extracted from the Cancer Registry of Norway for 487,118 women who participated in BreastScreen Norway, 2006–2017, with 2 years of follow-up. All mammograms were independently interpreted by two radiologists, using a score from 1 (negative) to 5 (high suspicion of cancer). A score of 2+ by one of the two radiologists was defined as discordant and 2+ by both radiologists as concordant positive. Consensus was performed on all discordant and concordant positive, with decisions of recall for further assessment or dismiss. OR was estimated with logistic regression with 95% confidence interval (CI), and histopathological tumor characteristics were analyzed for screen-detected and interval cancer.ResultsAmong screen-detected cancers, 23.0% (697/3024) had discordant scores, while 12.8% (117/911) of the interval cancers were dismissed at index screening. Adjusted OR was 2.4 (95% CI: 1.9–2.9) for interval cancer and 2.8 (95% CI: 2.5–3.2) for subsequent screen-detected cancer for women dismissed at consensus compared to women with concordant negative scores. We found 3.4% (4/117) of the interval cancers diagnosed after being dismissed to be DCIS, compared to 20.3% (12/59) of those with false-positive result after index screening.ConclusionTwenty-three percent of the screen-detected cancers was scored negative by one of the two radiologists. A higher odds of interval and subsequent screen-detected cancer was observed among women dismissed at consensus compared to concordant negative scores. Our findings indicate a benefit of personalized follow-up.Key Points• In this study of 487,118 women participating in a screening program using independent double reading with consensus, 23% screen-detected cancers were detected by only one of the two radiologists.• The adjusted odds ratio for interval cancer was 2.4 (95% confidence interval: 1.9, 2.9) for cases dismissed at consensus using concordant negative interpretations as the reference.• Interval cancers diagnosed after being dismissed at consensus or after concordant negative scores had clinically less favorable prognostic tumor characteristics compared to those diagnosed after false-positive results.