The British Journal of Radiology, Vol 68, Issue 813 958-962, Copyright © 1995 by British Institute of Radiology

ARTICLES

Comparison of single reading with double reading of mammograms, and change in effectiveness with experience

RM Warren and SW Duffy
Epping Breast Screening Service, University of Cambridge, UK.

In the prevalence round of screening for breast cancer at a single centre, the benefit of the second radiological report has been assessed using data from 33,734 women, their screening results and knowledge of the interval cancers. The service was set up under the UK National Breast Screening Programme, and the data show evidence of learning by both individuals and the team as a whole. Of the 269 cancers detected by screening, 33 would not have been diagnosed if the only report available had been the first. The recall recommendation rate associated with the first report was 6.9% and 236 cancers were detected. The recall recommendation rate associated with all queries of all the reports was 10% (3354 queries). Had these 3354 queries all been investigated (instead of the 1423 actually recalled) only a further three cancers would have been detected. Sensitivity of the programme as a whole was substantially better than that of individual radiologists, while the specificity was maintained. The decision pathway by which recalls were agreed between the two radiologists resulted in a low recall rate (4.2%) for the programme as a whole, and is a critical factor in gaining the benefit of the improved sensitivity without a concomitant deterioration in the specificity. With the passage through the prevalent round, recall rates steadily fell, the malignant to benign biopsy ratio improved and sensitivity increased. The second radiological report yielded 14% additional cancers diagnosed and contributed very significantly to good sensitivity and so to the effectiveness of screening. Economic analysis of the results will be reported in a further paper.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. L. Ellis, A. A. Meade, M. A. Mathiason, K. M. Willison, and W. Logan-Young Evaluation of Computer-aided Detection Systems in the Detection of Small Invasive Breast Carcinoma Radiology, October 1, 2007; 245(1): 88 - 94. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. J. Morton, D. H. Whaley, K. R. Brandt, and K. K. Amrami Screening Mammograms: Interpretation with Computer-aided Detection--Prospective Evaluation Radiology, May 1, 2006; 239(2): 375 - 383. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. L. Birdwell, P. Bandodkar, and D. M. Ikeda Computer-aided Detection with Screening Mammography in a University Hospital Setting Radiology, August 1, 2005; 236(2): 451 - 457. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. D. Rubin, J. K. Lyo, D. S. Paik, A. J. Sherbondy, L. C. Chow, A. N. Leung, R. Mindelzun, P. K. Schraedley-Desmond, S. E. Zinck, D. P. Naidich, et al. Pulmonary Nodules on Multi-Detector Row CT Scans: Performance Comparison of Radiologists and Computer-aided Detection Radiology, January 1, 2005; 234(1): 274 - 283. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. G. Elmore, C. Y. Nakano, T. D. Koepsell, L. M. Desnick, C. J. D'Orsi, and D. F. Ransohoff International Variation in Screening Mammography Interpretations in Community-Based Programs J Natl Cancer Inst, September 17, 2003; 95(18): 1384 - 1393. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. F. Brem, J. Baum, M. Lechner, S. Kaplan, S. Souders, L. G. Naul, and J. Hoffmeister Improvement in Sensitivity of Screening Mammography with Computer-Aided Detection: A Multiinstitutional Trial Am. J. Roentgenol., September 1, 2003; 181(3): 687 - 693. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. C. Harvey, B. Geller, R. G. Oppenheimer, M. Pinet, L. Riddell, and B. Garra Increase in Cancer Detection and Recall Rates with Independent Double Interpretation of Screening Mammography Am. J. Roentgenol., May 1, 2003; 180(5): 1461 - 1467. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. C. Yankaskas, R. J. Cleveland, M. J. Schell, and R. Kozar Association of Recall Rates with Sensitivity and Positive Predictive Values of Screening Mammography Am. J. Roentgenol., September 1, 2001; 177(3): 543 - 549. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				F. D. Gilliland, N. Joste, P. M. Stauber, W. C. Hunt, R. Rosenberg, G. Redlich, and C. R. Key Biologic Characteristics of Interval and Screen-Detected Breast Cancers J Natl Cancer Inst, May 3, 2000; 92(9): 743 - 749. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. J. Warren Burhenne, S. A. Wood, C. J. D'Orsi, S. A. Feig, D. B. Kopans, K. F. O'Shaughnessy, E. A. Sickles, L. Tabar, C. J. Vyborny, and R. A. Castellino Potential Contribution of Computer-aided Detection to the Sensitivity of Screening Mammography Radiology, May 1, 2000; 215(2): 554 - 562. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				S. H. Taplin, C. M. Rutter, J. G. Elmore, D. Seger, D. White, and R. J. Brenner Accuracy of Screening Mammography Using Single Versus Independent Double Interpretation Am. J. Roentgenol., May 1, 2000; 174(5): 1257 - 1262. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. Johnston and J. Brown Two view mammography at incident screens: cost effectiveness analysis of policy options BMJ, October 23, 1999; 319(7217): 1097 - 1102. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				J. M. Tonita, J. P. Hillis, and C.-H. Lim Medical Radiologic Technologist Review: Effects on a Population-based Breast Cancer Screening Program Radiology, May 1, 1999; 211(2): 529 - 533. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				J. Wells and J. Cooke Double reading of screening mammograms will have resource implications BMJ, July 13, 1996; 313(7049): 109c - 110. [Full Text]

				J. Brown, S. Bryan, and R. Warren Mammography screening: an incremental cost effectiveness analysis of double versus single reading of mammograms BMJ, March 30, 1996; 312(7034): 809 - 812. [Abstract] [Full Text]