Independent Double Reading Research Articles

Open Access Journal Policies: A Systematic Analysis of Radiology Journals

ObjectiveThe open access movement has pushed for greater access to scientific knowledge by expanding access to scientific journal articles. There is limited information about the extent to which open access policies have been adopted by radiology journals. We performed a systematic analysis to ascertain the proportion of radiology journals with open access options. Materials and MethodsA search was performed with the assistance of a clinical informationist. Full and mixed English-language diagnostic and interventional radiology Web of Science journals (impact factors > 1.0) were included. Nuclear medicine, radiation oncology, physics, and solicitation-only journals were excluded. Primary outcome was open access option (yes or no) with additional outcomes including presence or absence of embargo, complete or partial copyright transfer, publication fees, and self-archiving policies. Secondary outcomes included journal citations, journal impact factors, immediacy, Eigenfactor, and article influence scores. Independent double readings were performed with differences resolved by consensus, supplemented by contacting editorial staff at each journal. ResultsIn all, 125 journals were identified; review yielded 49 journals (39%, mean impact factor of 2.61). Thirty-six of the journals had open access options (73.4%), and four journals were exclusively open access (8.2%). Twelve-month embargoes were most commonly cited (90.6%) with 28.6% of journals stating that they did not require a complete transfer of copyright. Prices for open access options ranged from $750 to $4,000 (median $3,000). No statistically significant differences were found in journal impact measures comparing journals with open access options to journals without open access options. ConclusionsDiagnostic and interventional radiology journals have widely adopted open access options with a few radiology journals being exclusively open access.

Prospective Comparison of F-18 Choline PET/CT Scan Versus Axial MRI for Detecting Bone Metastasis in Biochemically Relapsed Prostate Cancer Patients.

We compared fluor-18 choline positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) and axial skeleton magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) prospectively obtained for the detection of bone metastases in non-castrated patients with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer following primary treatment. PET/CT was performed 45 min post-injection of 3–4 MBq/kg F-18 methyl choline. MRI included T1- and fluid sensitive T2-weighted images of the spine and pelvis. Readers were initially blinded from other results and all scans underwent independent double reading. The best valuable comparator (BVC) defined the metastatic status. On the basis of the BVC, 15 out of 64 patients presented with 24 bone metastases. On a patient level, the sensitivity and specificity of MRI and PET were not significantly different. On a lesion level, the sensitivity of MRI was significantly better compared to PET, and the specificity did not differ significantly. In conclusion, axial MRI is an interesting screening tool for the detection of bone metastases because of its low probability of false negative results. However, F-18 choline PET is a valuable addition as it can overrule false positive MRI results and detect non-axial metastases.

The role of cone-beam breast-CT for breast cancer detection relative to breast density.

To evaluate the impact of breast density on the diagnostic accuracy of non-contrast cone-beam breast computed tomography (CBBCT) in comparison to mammography for the detection of breast masses. A retrospective study was conducted from August 2015 to July 2016. Fifty-nine patients (65 breasts, 112 lesions) with BI-RADS, 5th edition 4 or 5 assessment in mammography and/or ultrasound of the breast received an additional non-contrast CBBCT. Independent double blind reading by two radiologists was performed for mammography and CBBCT imaging. Sensitivity, specificity and AUC were compared between the modalities. Breast lesions were histologically examined in 85 of 112 lesions (76%). The overall sensitivity for CBBCT (reader 1: 91%, reader 2: 88%) was higher than in mammography (both: 68%, p<0.001), and also for the high-density group (p<0.05). The specificity and AUC was higher for mammography in comparison to CBBCT (p<0.05 and p<0.001). The interobserver agreement (ICC) between the readers was 90% (95% CI: 86-93%) for mammography and 87% (95% CI: 82-91%) for CBBCT. Compared with two-view mammography, non-contrast CBBCT has higher sensitivity, lower specificity, and lower AUC for breast mass detection in both high and low density breasts. • Overall sensitivity for non-contrast CBBCT ranged between 88%-91%. • Sensitivity was higher for CBBCT than mammography in both density types (p<0.001). • Specificity was higher for mammography than CBBCT in both density types (p<0.05). • AUC was larger for mammography than CBBCT in both density types (p<0.001).

Digital mammography screening: sensitivity of the programme dependent on breast density.

To analyse the impact of breast density on the sensitivity of a population-based digital mammography screening programme (SP) as key evaluation parameter. 25,576 examinations were prospectively stratified from ACR category 1 to 4 for increments of 25% density during independent double reading. SP was calculated as number of screen-detected cancers divided by the sum of screen-detected plus interval cancers (24-months period) per ACR category, related to the first reading (a), second reading (b) and highest stratification if discrepant (c). Chi-square tests were used for comparison. Overall sensitivity of the programme was 79.9%. SP in ACR 4 (a: 50%, b: 50%, c: 50%) was significantly lower than in ACR 3 (a: 72.9%, b: 79.4%, c: 80.7%, p < 0.001), ACR 2 (a: 83.9%, b: 85.7%, c: 83.2%, p < 0.001) and ACR 1 (a: 100%, b: 88.8%, c: 100%; p < 0.001). Frequencies of ACR 4 were a: 5.0%, b: 4.3%, c: 6.9%. Digital mammography screening with independent double reading leads to a high overall SP. In the small group of women with breast density classified as ACR 4 SP is significantly reduced compared to all other ACR categories. • Overall sensitivity of a population-based digital mammography screening programme (SP) was 79.9%. • In women with ACR 1, 2, or 3, SP ranged between 72.9%-100%. • ACR 4 was rare in participants (<7%) and SP was only 50%. • SP in ACR 4 differed significantly from ACR 3 (p < 0.001).

Performance of one-view breast tomosynthesis as a stand-alone breast cancer screening modality: results from the Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial, a population-based study.

ObjectiveTo assess the performance of one-view digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in breast cancer screening.MethodsThe Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial is a prospective population-based one-arm study with a planned inclusion of 15000 participants; a random sample of women aged 40–74 years eligible for the screening programme. This is an explorative analysis of the first half of the study population (n = 7500). Participants underwent one-view DBT and two-view digital mammography (DM), with independent double reading and scoring. Primary outcome measures were detection rate, recall rate and positive predictive value (PPV). McNemar's test with 95 % confidence intervals was used.ResultsBreast cancer was found in sixty-eight women. Of these, 46 cases were detected by both modalities, 21 by DBT alone and one by DM alone. The detection rate for one-view DBT was 8.9/1000 screens (95 % CI 6.9 to 11.3) and 6.3/1000 screens (4.6 to 8.3) for two-view DM (p < 0.0001). The recall rate after arbitration was 3.8 % (3.3 to 4.2) for DBT and 2.6 % (2.3 to 3.0) for DM (p < 0.0001). The PPV was 24 % for both DBT and DM.ConclusionOur results suggest that one-view DBT might be feasible as a stand-alone screening modality.Key Points• One-view DBT as a stand-alone breast cancer screening modality has not been investigated.• One-view DBT increased the cancer detection rate significantly.• The recall rate increased significantly but was still low.• Breast cancer screening with one-view DBT as a stand-alone modality seems feasible.

Prospective trial comparing full-field digital mammography (FFDM) versus combined FFDM and tomosynthesis in a population-based screening programme using independent double reading with arbitration

ObjectivesTo compare double readings when interpreting full field digital mammography (2D) and tomosynthesis (3D) during mammographic screening.MethodsA prospective, Ethical Committee approved screening study is underway. During the first year 12,621 consenting women underwent both 2D and 3D imaging. Each examination was independently interpreted by four radiologists under four reading modes: Arm A—2D; Arm B—2D + CAD; Arm C—2D + 3D; Arm D—synthesised 2D + 3D. Examinations with a positive score by at least one reader were discussed at an arbitration meeting before a final management decision. Paired double reading of 2D (Arm A + B) and 2D + 3D (Arm C + D) were analysed. Performance measures were compared using generalised linear mixed models, accounting for inter-reader performance heterogeneity (P < 0.05).ResultsPre-arbitration false-positive scores were 10.3 % (1,286/12,501) and 8.5 % (1,057/12,501) for 2D and 2D + 3D, respectively (P < 0.001). Recall rates were 2.9 % (365/12,621) and 3.7 % (463/12,621), respectively (P = 0.005). Cancer detection was 7.1 (90/12,621) and 9.4 (119/12,621) per 1,000 examinations, respectively (30 % increase, P < 0.001); positive predictive values (detected cancer patients per 100 recalls) were 24.7 % and 25.5 %, respectively (P = 0.97). Using 2D + 3D, double-reading radiologists detected 27 additional invasive cancers (P < 0.001).ConclusionDouble reading of 2D + 3D significantly improves the cancer detection rate in mammography screening.Key Points• Tomosynthesis-based screening was successfully implemented in a large prospective screening trial.• Double reading of tomosynthesis-based examinations significantly reduced false-positive interpretations.• Double reading of tomosynthesis significantly increased the detection of invasive cancers.

Mammography screening using independent double reading with consensus: Is there a potential benefit for computer-aided detection?

Double reading improves the cancer detection rate in mammography screening. Single reading with computer-aided detection (CAD) has been considered to be an alternative to double reading. Little is known about the potential benefit of CAD in breast cancer screening with double reading. To compare prospective independent double reading of screen-film (SFM) and full-field digital (FFDM) mammography in population-based screening with retrospective standalone CAD performance on the baseline mammograms of the screen-detected cancers and subsequent cancers diagnosed during the follow-up period. The study had ethics committee approval. A 5-point rating scale for probability of cancer was used for 23,923 (SFM = 16,983; FFDM = 6940) screening mammograms. Of 208 evaluable cancers, 104 were screen-detected and 104 were subsequent (44 interval and 60 next screening round) cancers. Baseline mammograms of subsequent cancers were retrospectively classified in consensus without information about cancer location, histology, or CAD prompting as normal, non-specific minimal signs, significant minimal signs, and false-negatives. The baseline mammograms of the screen-detected cancers and subsequent cancers were evaluated by CAD. Significant minimal signs and false-negatives were considered 'actionable' and potentially diagnosable if correctly prompted by CAD. CAD correctly marked 94% (98/104) of the baseline mammograms of the screen-detected cancers (SFM = 95% [61/64]; FFDM = 93% [37/40]), including 96% (23/24) of those with discordant interpretations. Considering only those baseline examinations of subsequent cancers prospectively interpreted as normal and retrospectively categorized as 'actionable', CAD input at baseline screening had the potential to increase the cancer detection rate from 0.43% to 0.51% (P = 0.13); and to increase cancer detection by 16% ([104 + 17]/104) and decrease interval cancers by 20% (from 44 to 35). CAD may have the potential to increase cancer detection by up to 16%, and to reduce the number of interval cancers by up to 20% in SFM and FFDM screening programs using independent double reading with consensus review. The influence of true- and false-positive CAD marks on decision-making can, however, only be evaluated in a prospective clinical study.

Benefits of the quality assured double and arbitration reading of mammograms in the early diagnosis of breast cancer in symptomatic women

To address the benefits of double and arbitration reading regarding tumour detection rates, percentage of in situ tumours, and number (of patients) needed to send for expert reading (number needed to treat; NNT) for one additional tumour finding. QuaMaDi is a quality assured breast cancer diagnosis programme; with two-view mammography (craniocaudal, mediolateral oblique) and, in case of breast density ACR 3 or 4, routine ultrasound imaging; and with independent double reading of all images. A consecutive sample of symptomatic women, i.e. women at risk for breast cancer, women aged 70 and above, and/or women with preceding BI-RADS III findings, was analysed. 28,558 mammograms were performed (mean age of women: 57.3 [standard deviation: 12.3] years). Discordant findings were present in 3,837 double readings and were sent for arbitration reading. After histopathological assessment, 52 carcinomas were found (thereof 32% in situ). These carcinomas accounted for 1.8 tumours per 1,000 examinations in the total cohort and increased the tumour detection rate up to 16.4/1,000. The NNT in discordant cases was 74. Double and arbitration reading appears to be a useful tool to ensure the quality of early detection of breast lesions in symptomatic women during indication-based, standardised mammography. • Quality assured breast cancer diagnosis is feasible outside organised screening structures. • Double and arbitration reading is beneficial for populations ineligible for screening. • Double and arbitration reading increases the tumour detection rate. • Double and arbitration reading increases the percentage of in situ cancers.

Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography in a population-based screening program: The Sogn and Fjordane study

Studies comparing analog and digital mammography in breast cancer screening have shown conflicting results. Little is known about the use of digital photon-counting detectors. To retrospectively compare performance indicators in screen-film (SFM) and full-field digital mammography (FFDM) using a photon-counting detector in a population-based screening program. The Norwegian Social Science Data Services approved the study, which was part of the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program. The program invites women aged 50–69 years to two-view mammography biannually. The study period was January 2005 to June 2006 for SFM and August 2006 to December 2007 for FFDM. Independent double reading was performed using a five-point rating scale for probability of cancer. Recalls due to abnormal mammography were retrospectively reviewed by an expert panel. Performance indicators for the two techniques were compared. Attendance rate was 83.6% (7442/8901) for SFM and 82.0% (6932/8451) for FFDM. The recall rate due to abnormal mammography, cancer detection rate and positive predictive value did not differ significantly between SFM and FFDM: recall 2.3% (174/7442) versus 2.4% (168/6932), cancer detection 0.39% (29/7442) versus 0.48% (33/6932), positive predictive value 16.7% (29/174) versus 19.6% (33/168), respectively (P>0.05 for all). The recall rate due to technically inadequate mammograms was 0.3% (19/7442) for SFM and 0.01% (1/6932) for FFDM. In the retrospective review, a significantly higher proportion of calcifications and asymmetric density were categorized as normal or definitively benign in FFDM compared with SFM. The average glandular dose was 2.17 mGy for SFM and 1.25 mGy for FFDM. Performance indicators show that FFDM using photon-counting detector is suitable for breast cancer screening. The lower radiation dose and lower recalls due to technically inadequate mammograms are of importance in mammography screening.

Computer-Aided Diagnosis With Temporal Analysis to Improve Radiologists’ Interpretation of Mammographic Mass Lesions

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of independent reading with computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) and independent double reading on radiologists' performance to characterize mass lesions on serial mammograms. Six radiologists rated 198 cases, 99 benign and 99 malignant. For each case, the mammograms from two consecutive screening rounds were available. The mass was visible on the prior view in 40% of the cases. Independently, a CAD programe also rated each mass lesion making use of information from prior and current views. The following reading situations were compared: single reading, independent reading with CAD, and independent double reading. Independent reading with CAD was implemented by averaging the scaled ratings from each radiologist and the scaled CAD scores. We implemented independent double reading by averaging the scaled scores from two radiologists. Results were evaluated using receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) methodology and multiple reader multiple case analysis. The average performance, measured as the area under the ROC curve (A(z) value), was 0.80 for the single-reading mode. For independent double reading, the average performance improved to 0.81. This improvement was not significant. For independent interpretation with CAD, the average performance significantly increased to 0.83 (P < 0.05). We conclude that CAD technology with temporal analysis has the potential to help radiologists with the task of discriminating between benign and malignant masses.

''Might be something, might not'' - what happens when indeterminate grade screening mamograms are arbitrated?

Arbitration of screening mammograms following independent double reading with or without consensus has been shown to reduce recall rates and maintain cancer detection rates. This study examined the effect of arbitration of indeterminate (score 3) mammograms only following consensus decision to recall.

Screening-detected Breast Cancers: Discordant Independent Double Reading in a Population-based Screening Program

To analyze discordant and concordant screening-detected breast cancers in a nationwide population-based screening program by using independent double reading with consensus. The study is a part of the evaluation of the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program and is covered by the Cancer Registry regulation. Analyses were based on prospective initial interpretation scores of 1 033 870 screenings that included 5611 breast cancers. A five-point scale for probability of cancer was used in the initial interpretation. Screening mammograms with a score of 2 or higher by either radiologist were discussed at consensus meetings where the decision whether to recall was made. A score of 1 by one reader and 2 or higher by the other was defined as a discordant interpretation and discordant cancer, whereas a score of 2 or higher by both readers was defined as a concordant recall and cancer. Discordant interpretation was present in 5.3% (54 447 of 1 033 870) of the screenings, whereas 2.1% (21 928 of 1 033 870) were concordant positive interpretations. Of the screening-detected cancers, 23.6% (1326 of 5611) were diagnosed in women who were recalled because of screenings with discordant interpretation. One hundred seventeen interval breast cancers were diagnosed among the 40 312 screenings that were dismissed at consensus; these were 6.5% of all interval cancers. A significantly higher proportion of microcalcifications alone was present in discordant cancers (24.9% [304 of 1219]) compared with concordant cancers (17.7% [704 of 3972]) (P < .001). Independent double reading with consensus at mammography screening has the potential to increase the cancer detection rate compared with single reading. Mammograms with microcalcifications alone are significantly more common among discordant cancers.

Consensus Review of Discordant Findings Maximizes Cancer Detection Rate in Double-Reader Screening Mammography: Irish National Breast Screening Program Experience

To assesses consensus review of discordant screening mammography findings in terms of its sensitivity, safety, and effect on overall performance in the first 6 years of operation of the Irish National Breast Screening Program (NBSP). Women who participated in the Irish NBSP gave written informed consent for use of their data for auditing purposes. Local ethics committee approval was obtained. The study population consisted of women who participated in the Irish NBSP and underwent initial screening mammography at one of the two screening centers serving the eastern part of Ireland between 2000 and 2005. Independent double reading of mammograms was performed. When the readers disagreed regarding referral, the case was reviewed by a consensus panel. Of the 128 569 screenings performed, 1335 (1%) were discussed by consensus. Of the 1335 cases discussed by consensus, 606 (45.39%) were recalled for further assessment. This resulted in an overall recall rate of 4.41%. In those recalled to assessment, 71 cases of malignant disease were diagnosed (ductal carcinoma in situ, n = 24; invasive cancer, n = 47). The remaining 729 patients were returned to biennial screening. Of these 729 patients, seven had false-negative findings that were identified in the subsequent screening round. Use of the highest reader recall method, in which a patient is recalled if her findings are deemed abnormal by either reader, could potentially increase the cancer detection rate by 0.6 per 1000 women screened but would increase the recall rate by 12.69% and the number of false-positive findings by 15.37%. The consensus panel identified 71 (7.33%) of 968 cancers diagnosed. Consensus review substantially reduced the number of cases recalled and was associated with a low false-negative rate.

Consensus approach to discrepancies arising from independent double reading of screening mammograms

Consensus approach to discrepancies arising from independent double reading of screening mammograms

Mammography Facility Characteristics Associated With Interpretive Accuracy of Screening Mammography

BackgroundAlthough interpretive performance varies substantially among radiologists, such variation has not been examined among mammography facilities. Understanding sources of facility variation could become a foundation for improving interpretive performance.MethodsIn this cross-sectional study conducted between 1996 and 2002, we surveyed 53 facilities to evaluate associations between facility structure, interpretive process characteristics, and interpretive performance of screening mammography (ie, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value [PPV1], and the likelihood of cancer among women who were referred for biopsy [PPV2]). Measures of interpretive performance were ascertained prospectively from mammography interpretations and cancer data collected by the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses estimated the association between facility characteristics and mammography interpretive performance or accuracy (area under the ROC curve [AUC]). All P values were two-sided.ResultsOf the 53 eligible facilities, data on 44 could be analyzed. These 44 facilities accounted for 484 463 screening mammograms performed on 237 669 women, of whom 2686 were diagnosed with breast cancer during follow-up. Among the 44 facilities, mean sensitivity was 79.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 74.3% to 84.9%), mean specificity was 90.2% (95% CI = 88.3% to 92.0%), mean PPV1 was 4.1% (95% CI = 3.5% to 4.7%), and mean PPV2 was 38.8% (95% CI = 32.6% to 45.0%). The facilities varied statistically significantly in specificity (P < .001), PPV1 (P < .001), and PPV2 (P = .002) but not in sensitivity (P = .99). AUC was higher among facilities that offered screening mammograms alone vs those that offered screening and diagnostic mammograms (0.943 vs 0.911, P = .006), had a breast imaging specialist interpreting mammograms vs not (0.932 vs 0.905, P = .004), did not perform double reading vs independent double reading vs consensus double reading (0.925 vs 0.915 vs 0.887, P = .034), or conducted audit reviews two or more times per year vs annually vs at an unknown frequency (0.929 vs 0.904 vs 0.900, P = .018).ConclusionMammography interpretive performance varies statistically significantly by facility.

4–13 Effect of Computer-Aided Detection on Independent Double Reading of Paired Screen-Film and Full-Field Digital Screening Mammograms

4–13 Effect of Computer-Aided Detection on Independent Double Reading of Paired Screen-Film and Full-Field Digital Screening Mammograms

Randomized Trial of Screen-Film versus Full-Field Digital Mammography with Soft-Copy Reading in Population-based Screening Program: Follow-up and Final Results of Oslo II Study

To prospectively compare performance indicators at screen-film mammography (SFM) and full-field digital mammography (FFDM) in a population-based screening program. The regional ethics committee approved the study; informed consent was obtained from patients. Women aged 45-69 years were assigned to undergo SFM (n=16 985) or FFDM (n=6944). Two-view mammograms were interpreted by using independent double reading and a five-point rating scale for probability of cancer. Positive scores were discussed at consensus meetings before decision for recall. The group was followed up for 1.5 years (women aged 45-49 years) and 2.0 years (women aged 50-69 years) to include subsequent cancers with positive scores at baseline interpretation and to estimate interval cancer rate. Recall rates, cancer detection, positive predictive values (PPVs), sensitivity, specificity, tumor characteristics, and discordant interpretations of cancers were compared. Recall rate was 4.2% at FFDM and 2.5% at SFM (P<.001). Cancer detection rate was 0.59% at FFDM and 0.38% at SFM (P=.02). There was no significant difference in PPVs. Median size of screening-detected invasive cancers was 14 mm at FFDM and 13 mm at SFM. Including cancers dismissed at consensus meetings, overall true-positive rate at baseline reading was 0.63% at FFDM and 0.43% at SFM (P=.04). Sensitivity was 77.4% at FFDM and 61.5% at SFM (P=.07); specificity was 96.5% and 97.9%, respectively (P<.005). Interval cancer rate was 17.4 at FFDM and 23.6 at SFM. The proportion of cancers with discordant double readings was comparable at FFDM and SFM. FFDM resulted in a significantly higher cancer detection rate than did SFM. The PPVs were comparable for the two imaging modalities.

Additional Double Reading of Screening Mammograms by Radiologic Technologists: Impact on Screening Performance Parameters

Studies have shown that having mammography technologists review screening mammograms in addition to radiologist review may increase the number of breast cancers that are detected at screening mammography. We prospectively examined the effects on screening performance of adding independent double reading of screening mammograms by technologists to standard double reading by radiologists. Twenty-one screening mammography technologists and eight certified screening radiologists participated in this study. From January 1, 2003, to January 1, 2005, all 61,251 screening mammograms obtained at two mammography screening units in The Netherlands were independently read (although the second reader was not blinded to the first reader's interpretation) by two technologists and, in turn, by two radiologists. Radiologists were blinded to the referral opinion of the technologists. During a 2-year follow-up period, we collected clinical data, breast imaging reports, biopsy results, and breast surgery reports of all women with a positive screening result (i.e., those that required additional imaging) from any reader. The distributions of categorical variables between subgroups were compared using chi-square or Fisher's exact tests. Differences in referral and detection by radiologists and technologists were assessed using McNemar's test. All statistical tests were two-sided. The radiologists referred 905 women (referral rate = 1.48%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.38% to 1.57%), of whom 323 had breast cancer, corresponding to a positive predictive value of referral (PPV) of 35.7% (95% CI = 32.6% to 38.8%). Review of 446 additional technologist-positive readings led to another 80 referrals, resulting in the detection of 22 additional cancers. These extra referrals increased the initial referral rate from 1.48% to 1.61% (difference = 0.13%; 95% CI = 0.10% to 0.16%) and the cancer detection rate (CDR) from 5.27 to 5.63 cancers per 1000 women screened (difference = 0.36 cancers per 1000 women screened; 95% CI = 0.24 to 0.55). With technologist double reading only, 829 women would have been referred (referral rate = 1.35%, 95% CI = 1.26% to 1.45%); among these women, 286 cancers were diagnosed (PPV = 34.5%, 95% CI = 31.3% to 37.7%; CDR = 4.67 cancers per 1000 women screened, 95% CI = 4.13 to 5.21). Referral of all 1351 radiologist- and/or technologist-positive readings would have led to 362 cancers found at screening. The cancer detection rate for radiologist double reading would have increased from 5.27 to 5.91 cancers per 1000 women screened (relative increase = 12.1%, 95% CI = 8.8% to 16.5%; difference = 0.64 cancers per 1000 women screened, 95% CI = 0.47 to 0.87). A referral strategy that includes all technologist-positive readings, which would have increased the cancer detection rate while maintaining a low referral rate, should be considered.

Effect of Computer-Aided Detection on Independent Double Reading of Paired Screen-Film and Full-Field Digital Screening Mammograms

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance and potential contribution of computer-aided detection (CAD) to independent double reading of paired screen-film and full-field digital screening mammograms. The cases of 3,683 women who underwent both screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography (FFDM) with independent double reading for each technique were followed for 2 years to include cancers detected in the interval between screening rounds and cancers detected at the next screening round. Fifty-five biopsy-proven cancers were diagnosed. The baseline screening mammograms of the 55 cancers were defined as having positive findings if at least one of two independent readers scored it 2 or higher on a 5-point rating scale. The baseline mammograms of interval (n = 10) or secondround (n = 16) cancers were retrospectively classified as overlooked (n = 2), minimal sign actionable (n = 8), minimal sign nonactionable (n = 5), and normal (n = 11). The baseline mammograms of these cases of cancer were evaluated with a CAD system, and the CAD results were compared (McNemar's test for paired proportions) with the findings at prospective independent double reading of mammograms obtained with each technique. For FFDM, CAD sensitivity was 95% (37/39) compared with 64% (25/39) for double reading (p = 0.006), and for screen-film mammography, CAD sensitivity was 85% (33/39) compared with 77% (30/39) for prospective double reading (p = 0.57) of radiographically visible lesions in baseline mammograms. CAD correctly marked five (13%) of 39 cancers on screen-film mammography and 14 (36%) of 39 cancers on FFDM not detected at prospective independent double reading. CAD showed the potential to increase the cancer detection rate for FFDM and for screen-film mammography in breast cancer screening performed with independent double reading.

Dupla leitura no rastreamento mamográfico

OBJETIVO: Avaliar a eficácia da dupla leitura de mamografias de rotina para rastreamento do câncer de mama, em ambiente privado (não acadêmico). MATERIAIS E MÉTODOS: Durante um ano, 22.024 mamografias de rastreamento, em mulheres assintomáticas, foram submetidas a dupla leitura independente, por dois radiologistas especializados em imaginologia mamária. Foram determinados o número de carcinomas adicionais encontrados com a dupla interpretação e o número absoluto de reconvocações geradas por tal prática. RESULTADOS: Foram detectados nove carcinomas adicionais com a dupla leitura, sendo 55,5% ductal in situ e o restante, ductal invasivo até 1,5 cm. Nosso índice de reconvocação absoluto gerado pela dupla interpretação foi de apenas 1,8%, com achados falso-positivos em 98%. CONCLUSÃO: O uso da dupla leitura no rastreamento mamográfico aumentou o índice de detecção de câncer em 8,5% e todos os tumores encontrados foram estádio 0 ou 1.