Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Screening-detected Breast Cancers: Discordant Independent Double Reading in a Population-based Screening Program1

Screening-detected Breast Cancers: Discordant Independent Double Reading in a Population-based... 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. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Radiology Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

Screening-detected Breast Cancers: Discordant Independent Double Reading in a Population-based Screening Program1

Loading next page...
 
/lp/radiological-society-of-north-america-inc/screening-detected-breast-cancers-discordant-independent-double-LOuAokQo6X

References (32)

Publisher
Radiological Society of North America, Inc.
Copyright
Copyright © 2009 by Radiological Society of North America
ISSN
1527-1315
eISSN
0033-8419
DOI
10.1148/radiol.2533090210
pmid
19789229
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

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.

Journal

RadiologyRadiological Society of North America, Inc.

Published: Dec 1, 2009

There are no references for this article.