The Library
Double reading in breast cancer screening : cohort evaluation in the CO-OPS trial
Tools
Tools
Tools
Taylor-Phillips, Sian, Jenkinson, David J., Stinton, Chris, Wallis, Matthew G., Dunn, Janet A. and Clarke, Aileen (2018) Double reading in breast cancer screening : cohort evaluation in the CO-OPS trial. Radiology, 287 (3). pp. 749-757. 171010. doi:10.1148/radiol.2018171010
|
PDF
WRAP-double-reading-breast-cancer-screening-Taylor-Phillips-2018.pdf - Published Version - Requires a PDF viewer. Available under License Creative Commons Attribution 4.0. Download (1106Kb) | Preview |
|
![[img]](http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/style/images/fileicons/application_pdf.png) |
PDF
WRAP-double-reading-breast-cancer-screening-Taylor-Phillips-2018.pdf - Accepted Version Embargoed item. Restricted access to Repository staff only - Requires a PDF viewer. Download (940Kb) |
Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2018171010
Abstract
Purpose:
To investigate the effect of double readings by a second radiologist on recall rates, cancer detection and characteristics of cancers detected in the National Health Service Breast Screening Program in England.
Materials and Methods:
In this retrospective analysis we evaluated 805,206 women through screening and diagnostic test results by extracting one year of routine data from 33 English breast screening centers. Centers used double reading of digital mammograms, with arbitration if there were discrepant reads. Information on reader decisions, with results of follow-up tests, were used to explore the effect of the second reader. The statistical tests used were the test for equality of proportions, the χ2 test for independence and the t-test.
Results:
The first reader recalled 4·76%, (38295/805206, 95% CI 4·71%-4·80%) of women. Two readers recalled 6·19% in total, (49857/805206, 95% CI 6·14%- 6·24%), but arbitration of discordant reads reduced recall rate to 4·08%, (32863/805206, 95% CI 4·04%-4·12%, p<0.001). 7055 cancers were detected of which 627 (8·89%, 95% CI 8·22%-9·55%, p<0.001) were detected by the second reader only. These additional cancers were more likely to be ductal carcinoma in situ, (30·5% (183/600) vs 22.0% (1344/6114), p<0.001); and additional invasive cancers were smaller (mean 14·2mm vs 16·7mm, p<0.001), had fewer involved nodes, and were likely to be lower grade.
Conclusion:
Double reading with arbitration reduces recall and increases cancer detection compared to single reading. Cancers detected only by the second reader were smaller, lower grade, and had less nodal involvement.
| Item Type: | Journal Article | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Subjects: | R Medicine > RC Internal medicine > RC0254 Neoplasms. Tumors. Oncology (including Cancer) | ||||||||
| Divisions: | Faculty of Medicine > Warwick Medical School > Health Sciences Faculty of Medicine > Warwick Medical School > Health Sciences > Population, Evidence & Technologies (PET) Faculty of Medicine > Warwick Medical School |
||||||||
| Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH): | Breast -- Cancer -- Diagnosis, Medical screening, Radiology | ||||||||
| Journal or Publication Title: | Radiology | ||||||||
| Publisher: | Radiological Society of North America, Inc. | ||||||||
| ISSN: | 0033-8419 | ||||||||
| Official Date: | June 2018 | ||||||||
| Dates: |
|
||||||||
| Volume: | 287 | ||||||||
| Number: | 3 | ||||||||
| Page Range: | pp. 749-757 | ||||||||
| Article Number: | 171010 | ||||||||
| DOI: | 10.1148/radiol.2018171010 | ||||||||
| Status: | Peer Reviewed | ||||||||
| Publication Status: | Published | ||||||||
| Access rights to Published version: | Open Access | ||||||||
| RIOXX Funder/Project Grant: |
|
Request changes or add full text files to a record
Repository staff actions (login required)
 |
View Item |
