首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
     


Variations in screening outcome among pairs of screening radiologists at non-blinded double reading of screening mammograms: a population-based study
Authors:E. G. Klompenhouwer  L. E. M. Duijm  A. C. Voogd  G. J. den Heeten  J. Nederend  F. H Jansen  M. J. M. Broeders
Affiliation:1. Department of Radiology, Catharina Hospital, PO Box 1350, 5602 ZA, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
2. Department of Radiology, Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital, PO Box 9015, 6500 GS, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
3. Comprehensive Cancer Centre South (IKZ)/Eindhoven Cancer Registry, PO Box 231, 5600 AE, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
4. Department of Epidemiology, Maastricht University, PO Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands
5. National Expert and Training Centre for Breast Cancer Screening, PO Box 6873, 6503 GJ, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
6. Department of Radiology, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, PO Box 22660, 1100 DD, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
7. Department for Health Evidence, University Medical Centre St Radboud, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Abstract:

Objectives

Substantial inter-observer variability in screening mammography interpretation has been reported at single reading. However, screening results of pairs of screening radiologists have not yet been published. We determined variations in screening performances among pairs of screening radiologists at non-blinded double reading.

Methods

We included pairs of screening radiologists with at least 7,500 screening examinations per pair, obtained between 1997 and 2011. During 2-year follow-up, breast imaging reports, surgical reports and pathology results were collected of all referred women and interval cancers. Referral rate, cancer detection rate, positive predictive value and sensitivity were calculated for each pair.

Results

A total of 310,906 screening mammograms, read by 26 pairs of screening radiologists, were included for analysis. The referral rate ranged from 1.0 % (95 % CI 0.8 %–1.2 %) to 1.5 % (95 % CI 1.3 %–1.8 %), the cancer detection rate from 4.0 (95 % CI 2.8–5.2) to 6.3 (95 % CI 4.5–8.0) per 1,000 screens. The programme sensitivity and positive predictive value of referral ranged from 55.1 % (95 % CI 45.1 %–65.1 %) to 81.5 % (95 % CI 73.4 %–89.6 %) and from 28.7 % (95 % CI 20.8 %–36.6 %) to 49.5 % (95 % CI 39.7 %–59.3 %), respectively.

Conclusion

We found significant variations in screening outcomes among pairs of screening radiologists at non-blinded double reading. This stresses the importance of monitoring screening results on a local scale.

Key Points

? Substantial inter-observer variability in screening mammography interpretation is known at single reading ? Population-based study showed significant variations in outcomes among pairs of screening radiologists ? Local monitoring and regular feedback are important to optimise screening outcome
Keywords:
本文献已被 SpringerLink 等数据库收录!
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号