Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
W. Berg, C. D'Orsi, V. Jackson, L. Bassett, C. Beam, Rebecca Lewis, P. Crewson (2002)
Does training in the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) improve biopsy recommendations or feature analysis agreement with experienced breast imagers at mammography?Radiology, 224 3
Jacob Cohen (1968)
Weighted kappa: Nominal scale agreement provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit.Psychological Bulletin, 70
C. Shaw, F. Flanagan, H. Fenlon, M. McNicholas (2009)
Consensus review of discordant findings maximizes cancer detection rate in double-reader screening mammography: Irish National Breast Screening Program experience.Radiology, 250 2
K. Kerlikowske, D. Grady, Jonathan Barclay, S. Frankel, S. Ominsky, E. Sickles, V. Ernster (1998)
Variability and accuracy in mammographic interpretation using the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System.Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 90 23
B. Séradour, S. Wait, J. Jacquemier, M. Dubuc (1996)
Dual reading in a non-specialized breast cancer screening programmeThe Breast, 5
W. Barlow, Chen Chi, P. Carney, S. Taplin, C. D'Orsi, G. Cutter, R. Hendrick, J. Elmore (2004)
Accuracy of screening mammography interpretation by characteristics of radiologists.Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 96 24
J. Elmore, C. Wells, Carol Lee, D. Howard, A. Feinstein (1994)
Variability in radiologists' interpretations of mammograms.The New England journal of medicine, 331 22
P. Skaane, S. Hofvind, A. Skjennald (2007)
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.Radiology, 244 3
C. Beam, E. Conant, E. Sickles (2002)
Factors affecting radiologist inconsistency in screening mammography.Academic radiology, 9 5
C Baines, Douglas Mcfarlane, A Miller (1990)
The role of the reference radiologist. Estimates of inter-observer agreement and potential delay in cancer detection in the national breast screening study.Investigative radiology, 25 9
L. Esserman, Helen Cowley, Carey Eberle, Alastair Kirkpatrick, Sophia Chang, K. Berbaum, A. Gale (2002)
Improving the accuracy of mammography: volume and outcome relationships.Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 94 5
N. Matcham, N. Ridley, S. Taylor, J. Cook, J. Scolding (2004)
Breast screening: the use of consensus opinion for all recalls.Breast, 13 3
P. Skaane, F. Diekmann, C. Balleyguier, S. Diekmann, J. Piguet, K. Young, M. Abdelnoor, L. Niklason (2008)
Observer variability in screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy readingEuropean Radiology, 18
Stephen Taplin, L. Abraham, William Barlow, Joshua Fenton, E. Berns, Patricia Carney, G. Cutter, E. Sickles, D'Orsi Carl, Joann Elmore (2008)
Mammography Facility Characteristics Associated With Interpretive Accuracy of Screening MammographyJNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 100
E. Thurfjell, K Lernevall, A. Taube (1994)
Benefit of independent double reading in a population-based mammography screening program.Radiology, 191 1
G. Ciccone, P. Vineis, A. Frigerio, N. Segnan (1992)
Inter-observer and intra-observer variability of mammogram interpretation: a field study.European journal of cancer, 28A 6-7
J. Fleiss (1973)
Statistical methods for rates and proportions
B. Yankaskas, S. Taplin, L. Ichikawa, B. Geller, R. Rosenberg, P. Carney, K. Kerlikowske, R. Ballard-Barbash, G. Cutter, W. Barlow (2005)
Association between mammography timing and measures of screening performance in the United States.Radiology, 234 2
S. Harvey, B. Geller, R. Oppenheimer, M. Pinet, Leslie Riddell, B. Garra (2003)
Increase in cancer detection and recall rates with independent double interpretation of screening mammography.AJR. American journal of roentgenology, 180 5
W. Berg, C. Campassi, P. Langenberg, M. Sexton (2000)
Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: inter- and intraobserver variability in feature analysis and final assessment.AJR. American journal of roentgenology, 174 6
S. Taplin, C. Rutter, J. Elmore, D. Seger, D. White, Brenner Rj (2000)
Accuracy of screening mammography using single versus independent double interpretation.AJR. American journal of roentgenology, 174 5
R. Blanks, M Wallis, S Moss (1998)
A comparison of cancer detection rates achieved by breast cancer screening programmes by number of readers, for one and two view mammography: results from the UK National Health Service breast screening programmeJournal of Medical Screening, 5
S. Ciatto, D. Ambrogetti, G. Risso, S. Catarzi, D. Morrone, P. Mantellini, M. Turco (2005)
The role of arbitration of discordant reports at double reading of screening mammogramsJournal of Medical Screening, 12
S. Hofvind, B. Geller, P. Vacek, S. Thoresen, P. Skaane (2007)
Using the European guidelines to evaluate the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening ProgramEuropean Journal of Epidemiology, 22
C. Beam, P. Layde, D. Sullivan (1996)
Variability in the interpretation of screening mammograms by US radiologists. Findings from a national sample.Archives of internal medicine, 156 2
E.D.C. Anderson, B. Muir, J. Walsh, A. Kirkpatrick (1994)
The efficacy of double reading mammograms in breast screening.Clinical radiology, 49 4
L. Kan, Ivo Olivotto, L. Burhenne, E. Sickles, Andrew Coldman (2000)
Standardized abnormal interpretation and cancer detection ratios to assess reading volume and reader performance in a breast screening program.Radiology, 215 2
S. Moss, R. Blanks, R. Bennett (2005)
Is radiologists' volume of mammography reading related to accuracy? A critical review of the literature.Clinical radiology, 60 6
L. Duijm, J. Groenewoud, J. Hendriks, H. Koning (2004)
Independent double reading of screening mammograms in The Netherlands: effect of arbitration following reader disagreements.Radiology, 231 2
J. Elmore, C. Nakano, T. Koepsell, L. Desnick, C. D'Orsi, D. Ransohoff (2003)
International variation in screening mammography interpretations in community-based programs.Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 95 18
E. Cornford, Alan Evans, Jonathan James, H. Burrell, S. Pinder, A.Robin Wilson (2005)
The pathological and radiological features of screen-detected breast cancers diagnosed following arbitration of discordant double reading opinions.Clinical radiology, 60 11
Jackie Brown, S. Bryan, R. Warren (1996)
Mammography screening: an incremental cost effectiveness analysis of double versus single reading of mammogramsBMJ, 312
Purpose: To analyze discordant and concordant screening-detected breast cancers in a nationwide population-based screening program by using independent double reading with consensus. Materials and Methods: 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. Results: 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). Conclusion: 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.
Radiology – Radiological Society of North America, Inc.
Published: Dec 1, 2009
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.