Blinded double reading yields a higher programme sensitivity than non-blinded double reading at digital screening mammography: A prospected population based study in the south of The Netherlands

E.G. Klompenhouwer; A.C. Voogd; G.J. den Heeten; L.J.A. Strobbe; A.F.J. de Haan; C.A. Wauters; M.J.M. Broeders; L.E.M. Duijm

doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2014.12.008

Blinded double reading yields a higher programme sensitivity than non-blinded double reading at digital screening mammography: A prospected population based study in the south of The Netherlands

E.G. Klompenhouwer^*, A.C. Voogd, G.J. den Heeten, L.J.A. Strobbe, A.F.J. de Haan, C.A. Wauters, M.J.M. Broeders, L.E.M. Duijm

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Academic › peer-review

Abstract

Purpose: To prospectively determine the screening mammography outcome at blinded and non-blinded double reading in a;biennial population based screening programme in the south of the Netherlands.

Methods: We included a consecutive series of 87,487 digital screening mammograms, obtained between July 2009 and July 2011. Screening mammograms were double read in either a blinded (2nd reader was not informed about the 1st reader's decision) or non-blinded fashion (2nd reader was informed about the 1st reader's decision). This reading strategy was alternated on a monthly basis. Women with discrepant readings between the two radiologists were always referred for further analysis. During 2 years follow-up, we collected the radiology reports, surgical correspondence and pathology reports of all referred women and interval breast cancers.

Results: Respectively 44,491 and 42,996 screens had been read either in a blinded or non-blinded fashion. Referral rate (3.3% versus 2.8%, p

Conclusion: We advocate the use of blinded double reading in order to achieve a better programme sensitivity, at the expense of an increased referral rate and false positive referral rate. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	391-399
Number of pages	9
Journal	European Journal of Cancer
Volume	51
Issue number	3
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2014.12.008
Publication status	Published - Feb 2015

Keywords

Breast cancer
Screening mammography
Double reading
Referral rate
Sensitivity
Positive predictive value
FALSE-POSITIVE MAMMOGRAMS
BREAST-CANCER MORTALITY
OVERDIAGNOSIS
TOMOSYNTHESIS
IMPACT
RATES
COST

Access to Document

10.1016/j.ejca.2014.12.008

Cite this

Klompenhouwer, E. G., Voogd, A. C., den Heeten, G. J., Strobbe, L. J. A., de Haan, A. F. J., Wauters, C. A., Broeders, M. J. M., & Duijm, L. E. M. (2015). Blinded double reading yields a higher programme sensitivity than non-blinded double reading at digital screening mammography: A prospected population based study in the south of The Netherlands. European Journal of Cancer, 51(3), 391-399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2014.12.008

@article{eadcb8d20a2e41d99f608b71d89be078,

title = "Blinded double reading yields a higher programme sensitivity than non-blinded double reading at digital screening mammography: A prospected population based study in the south of The Netherlands",

abstract = "Purpose: To prospectively determine the screening mammography outcome at blinded and non-blinded double reading in a;biennial population based screening programme in the south of the Netherlands.Methods: We included a consecutive series of 87,487 digital screening mammograms, obtained between July 2009 and July 2011. Screening mammograms were double read in either a blinded (2nd reader was not informed about the 1st reader's decision) or non-blinded fashion (2nd reader was informed about the 1st reader's decision). This reading strategy was alternated on a monthly basis. Women with discrepant readings between the two radiologists were always referred for further analysis. During 2 years follow-up, we collected the radiology reports, surgical correspondence and pathology reports of all referred women and interval breast cancers.Results: Respectively 44,491 and 42,996 screens had been read either in a blinded or non-blinded fashion. Referral rate (3.3% versus 2.8%, pConclusion: We advocate the use of blinded double reading in order to achieve a better programme sensitivity, at the expense of an increased referral rate and false positive referral rate. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.",

keywords = "Breast cancer, Screening mammography, Double reading, Referral rate, Sensitivity, Positive predictive value, FALSE-POSITIVE MAMMOGRAMS, BREAST-CANCER MORTALITY, OVERDIAGNOSIS, TOMOSYNTHESIS, IMPACT, RATES, COST",

author = "E.G. Klompenhouwer and A.C. Voogd and {den Heeten}, G.J. and L.J.A. Strobbe and {de Haan}, A.F.J. and C.A. Wauters and M.J.M. Broeders and L.E.M. Duijm",

year = "2015",

month = feb,

doi = "10.1016/j.ejca.2014.12.008",

language = "English",

volume = "51",

pages = "391--399",

journal = "European Journal of Cancer",

issn = "0959-8049",

publisher = "ELSEVIER SCI LTD",

number = "3",

}

Klompenhouwer, EG, Voogd, AC, den Heeten, GJ, Strobbe, LJA, de Haan, AFJ, Wauters, CA, Broeders, MJM & Duijm, LEM 2015, 'Blinded double reading yields a higher programme sensitivity than non-blinded double reading at digital screening mammography: A prospected population based study in the south of The Netherlands', European Journal of Cancer, vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 391-399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2014.12.008

Blinded double reading yields a higher programme sensitivity than non-blinded double reading at digital screening mammography: A prospected population based study in the south of The Netherlands. / Klompenhouwer, E.G.; Voogd, A.C.; den Heeten, G.J. et al.
In: European Journal of Cancer, Vol. 51, No. 3, 02.2015, p. 391-399.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Academic › peer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Blinded double reading yields a higher programme sensitivity than non-blinded double reading at digital screening mammography: A prospected population based study in the south of The Netherlands

AU - Klompenhouwer, E.G.

AU - Voogd, A.C.

AU - den Heeten, G.J.

AU - Strobbe, L.J.A.

AU - de Haan, A.F.J.

AU - Wauters, C.A.

AU - Broeders, M.J.M.

AU - Duijm, L.E.M.

PY - 2015/2

Y1 - 2015/2

N2 - Purpose: To prospectively determine the screening mammography outcome at blinded and non-blinded double reading in a;biennial population based screening programme in the south of the Netherlands.Methods: We included a consecutive series of 87,487 digital screening mammograms, obtained between July 2009 and July 2011. Screening mammograms were double read in either a blinded (2nd reader was not informed about the 1st reader's decision) or non-blinded fashion (2nd reader was informed about the 1st reader's decision). This reading strategy was alternated on a monthly basis. Women with discrepant readings between the two radiologists were always referred for further analysis. During 2 years follow-up, we collected the radiology reports, surgical correspondence and pathology reports of all referred women and interval breast cancers.Results: Respectively 44,491 and 42,996 screens had been read either in a blinded or non-blinded fashion. Referral rate (3.3% versus 2.8%, pConclusion: We advocate the use of blinded double reading in order to achieve a better programme sensitivity, at the expense of an increased referral rate and false positive referral rate. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

AB - Purpose: To prospectively determine the screening mammography outcome at blinded and non-blinded double reading in a;biennial population based screening programme in the south of the Netherlands.Methods: We included a consecutive series of 87,487 digital screening mammograms, obtained between July 2009 and July 2011. Screening mammograms were double read in either a blinded (2nd reader was not informed about the 1st reader's decision) or non-blinded fashion (2nd reader was informed about the 1st reader's decision). This reading strategy was alternated on a monthly basis. Women with discrepant readings between the two radiologists were always referred for further analysis. During 2 years follow-up, we collected the radiology reports, surgical correspondence and pathology reports of all referred women and interval breast cancers.Results: Respectively 44,491 and 42,996 screens had been read either in a blinded or non-blinded fashion. Referral rate (3.3% versus 2.8%, pConclusion: We advocate the use of blinded double reading in order to achieve a better programme sensitivity, at the expense of an increased referral rate and false positive referral rate. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

KW - Breast cancer

KW - Screening mammography

KW - Double reading

KW - Referral rate

KW - Sensitivity

KW - Positive predictive value

KW - FALSE-POSITIVE MAMMOGRAMS

KW - BREAST-CANCER MORTALITY

KW - OVERDIAGNOSIS

KW - TOMOSYNTHESIS

KW - IMPACT

KW - RATES

KW - COST

U2 - 10.1016/j.ejca.2014.12.008

DO - 10.1016/j.ejca.2014.12.008

M3 - Article

C2 - 25573788

SN - 0959-8049

VL - 51

SP - 391

EP - 399

JO - European Journal of Cancer

JF - European Journal of Cancer

IS - 3

ER -