Inviting an author to review:
Find an author and click ‘Invite to review selected article’ near their name.
Search for authorsSearch for similar articles
5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Screening-detected breast cancers: discordant independent double reading in a population-based screening program.

      Radiology
      Aged, Breast Neoplasms, radiography, Chi-Square Distribution, Clinical Competence, Decision Making, Female, Humans, Logistic Models, Mammography, Mass Screening, methods, Middle Aged, Norway, Observer Variation, Prospective Studies, Radiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          To analyze discordant and concordant screening-detected breast cancers in a nationwide population-based screening program by using independent double reading with consensus. 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. 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). 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.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Comments

          Comment on this article

          scite_
          0
          0
          0
          0
          Smart Citations
          0
          0
          0
          0
          Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
          View Citations

          See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

          scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

          Similar content227

          Cited by15