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

Service and clinical impacts of reader bias in breast cancer screening: a retrospective study

OBJECTIVES

To determine factors influencing reader agreement in breast screening and investigate the relationship between agreement level and patient outcomes.

METHODS

Reader pair agreement for 83 265 sets of mammograms from the Scottish Breast Screening service (2015-2020) was evaluated using Cohen's kappa statistic. Each mammography examination was read by two readers, per routine screening practice, with the second initially blinded but able to choose to view the first reader's opinion. If the two readers disagreed, a third reader arbitrated. Variation in reader agreement was examined by: whether the reader acted as the first or second reader, reader experience, and recall, cancer detection and arbitration recall rate.

RESULTS

Readers' opinions varied by whether they acted as the first or second reader. Furthermore, reader 2 was more likely to agree with reader 1 if reader 1 was more experienced than they were, and less likely to agree if they themselves were more experienced than reader 1 (P < .001). Agreement was not significantly associated with cancer detection rate, overall recall rate or arbitration recall rates (P > .05). Lower agreement between readers led to a higher arbiter workload (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

In mammography screening, the second reader's opinion is influenced by the first reader's opinion, with the degree of influence dependent on the readers' relative experience levels.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

While less-experienced readers relied on their more experienced reading partner, no adverse impact on service outcomes was observed. Allowing access to the first reader's opinion may benefit newly qualified readers, but reduces independent evaluation, which may lower cancer detection rates.

Considerations for Evaluating the Introduction of New Cancer Screening Technology: Use of Interval Cancers to Assess Potential Benefits and Harms

This framework focuses on the importance of the consideration of the downstream intermediate and long-term health outcomes when a change to a screening program is introduced. The authors present a methodology for utilising the relationship between screen-detected and interval cancer rates to infer the benefits and harms associated with a change to the program. A review of the previous use of these measures in the literature is presented. The framework presents other aspects to consider when utilizing this methodology, and builds upon an existing framework that helps researchers, clinicians, and policy makers to consider the impacts of changes to screening programs on health outcomes. It is hoped that this research will inform future evaluative studies to assess the benefits and harms of changes to screening programs.

Histopathological diagnosis of cutaneous melanocytic lesions: blinded and nonblinded second opinions offer similar improvement in diagnostic accuracy

BACKGROUND

Previous studies of second opinions in the diagnosis of melanocytic skin lesions have examined blinded second opinions, which do not reflect usual clinical practice. The current study, conducted in the USA, investigated both blinded and nonblinded second opinions for their impact on diagnostic accuracy.

METHODS

In total, 100 melanocytic skin biopsy cases, ranging from benign to invasive melanoma, were interpreted by 74 dermatopathologists. Subsequently, 151 dermatopathologists performed nonblinded second and third reviews. We compared the accuracy of single reviewers, second opinions obtained from independent, blinded reviewers and second opinions obtained from sequential, nonblinded reviewers. Accuracy was defined with respect to a consensus reference diagnosis.

RESULTS

The mean case-level diagnostic accuracy of single reviewers was 65.3% (95% CI 63.4-67.2%). Second opinions arising from sequential, nonblinded reviewers significantly improved accuracy to 69.9% (95% CI 68.0-71.7%; P < 0.001). Similarly, second opinions arising from blinded reviewers improved upon the accuracy of single reviewers (69.2%; 95% CI 68.0-71.7%). Nonblinded reviewers were more likely than blinded reviewers to give diagnoses in the same diagnostic classes as the first diagnosis. Nonblinded reviewers tended to be more confident when they agreed with previous reviewers, even with inaccurate diagnoses.

CONCLUSION

We found that both blinded and nonblinded second reviewers offered a similar modest improvement in diagnostic accuracy compared with single reviewers. Obtaining second opinions with knowledge of previous reviews tends to generate agreement among reviews, and may generate unwarranted confidence in an inaccurate diagnosis. Combining aspects of both blinded and nonblinded review in practice may leverage the advantages while mitigating the disadvantages of each approach. Specifically, a second pathologist could give an initial diagnosis blinded to the results of the first pathologist, with subsequent nonblinded discussion between the two pathologists if their diagnoses differ.

Repeat Breast Ultrasound Demonstrates Utility with Added Cancer Detection in Patients following Breast Imaging Second Opinion Recommendations

Purpose

Second opinion consultation for patients with suspicious findings on breast imaging and patients with known breast cancer is not uncommon. We sought to determine the frequency of second opinion breast and axillary ultrasound imaging review and the subsequent impact on clinical management.

Materials and Methods

An IRB-approved retrospective chart review was conducted on 400 consecutive patients with second opinion radiology interpretations performed by subspecialized breast radiologists at a designated cancer center, including mammogram and ultrasound review. The outside institution imaging reports were compared with second opinion reports to categorize ultrasound review discrepancies which were defined as any BI-RADS category change. The discrepancy frequency, relevant alterations in patient management, and added cancer detection were measured.

Results

The second opinion imaging review resulted in discrepant findings in 108/400 patients (27%). Patients with heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts had higher discrepancy frequency (36% discrepancy, 68/187) than those with almost entirely fatty or scattered fibroglandular breast tissue (19% discrepancy, 40/213) with P = 0.0001. Discrepancies resulted in the following changes in impression/recommendations: 70 repeat ultrasounds for better characterization of a breast lesion, 11 repeat ultrasounds of a negative region, 20 repeat ultrasounds for benign axillary lymph nodes, 5 downgrades from probably benign to benign, and 2 upgrades from benign to suspicious. Repeat ultrasounds of the axilla in 19 patients resulted in 13 biopsy recommendations, and 4 were metastatic (PPV3 31%). In the breast, repeat ultrasounds in 81 patients resulted in 14 upgrades to suspicious. Of these, 5 yielded malignancy. In addition, one patient was upgraded from benign to suspicious based on the outside image, with pathology revealing malignancy (breast PPV3 40%). Breast lesion BI-RADS category downgrades in 27 patients resulted in 10 avoided biopsies. Ultimately, second opinion ultrasound review resulted in altered management in 12% of patients (47/400). This included discovery of additional breast malignancies in 6 patients, metastatic lymph nodes in 4 patients, excisional biopsy for atypia in 1 patient, 4 patients proceeding to mastectomy, 10 patients who avoided biopsies, and 22 patients who avoided follow-up of benign findings.

Conclusions

In this study, subspecialized second opinion ultrasound review had an impact on preventing unnecessary procedures and follow-up exams in 8% of patients while detecting additional cancer in 2.5%.

SCREENING MAMMOGRAPHY: DIAGNOSTIC EFFICACY-ISSUES AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE 2020S

Diagnostic efficacy in medical imaging is ultimately a reflection of radiologist performance. This can be influenced by numerous factors, some of which are patient related, such as the physical size and density of the breast, and machine related, where some lesions are difficult to visualise on traditional imaging techniques. Other factors are human reader errors that occur during the diagnostic process, which relate to reader experience and their perceptual and cognitive oversights. Given the large-scale nature of breast cancer screening, even small increases in diagnostic performance equate to large numbers of women saved. It is important to identify the causes of diagnostic errors and how detection efficacy can be improved. This narrative review will therefore explore the various factors that influence mammographic performance and the potential solutions used in an attempt to ameliorate the errors made.

Optimising breast cancer screening reading: blinding the second reader to the first reader's decisions

Objectives

In breast cancer screening, two readers separately examine each woman’s mammograms for signs of cancer. We examined whether preventing the two readers from seeing each other’s decisions (blinding) affects behaviour and outcomes.

Methods

This cohort study used data from the CO-OPS breast-screening trial (1,119,191 women from 43 screening centres in England) where all discrepant readings were arbitrated. Multilevel models were fitted using Markov chain Monte Carlo to measure whether reader 2 conformed to the decisions of reader 1 when they were not blinded, and the effect of blinding on overall rates of recall for further tests and cancer detection. Differences in positive predictive value (PPV) were assessed using Pearson’s chi-squared test.

Results

When reader 1 recalls, the probability of reader 2 also recalling was higher when not blinded than when blinded, suggesting readers may be influenced by the other’s decision. Overall, women were less likely to be recalled when reader 2 was blinded (OR 0.923; 95% credible interval 0.864, 0.986), with no clear pattern in cancer detection rate (OR 1.029; 95% credible interval 0.970, 1.089; Bayesian p value 0.832). PPV was 22.1% for blinded versus 20.6% for not blinded (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Our results suggest that when not blinded, reader 2 is influenced by reader 1’s decisions to recall (alliterative bias) which would result in bypassing arbitration and negate some of the benefits of double-reading. We found a relationship between blinding the second reader and slightly higher PPV of breast cancer screening, although this analysis may be confounded by other centre characteristics.

Key Points

• In Europe, it is recommended that breast screening mammograms are analysed by two readers but there is little evidence on the effect of ‘blinding’ the readers so they cannot see each other’s decisions.

• We found evidence that when the second reader is not blinded, they are more likely to agree with a recall decision from the first reader and less likely to make an independent judgement (alliterative error). This may reduce overall accuracy through bypassing arbitration.

• This observational study suggests an association between blinding the second reader and higher positive predictive value of screening, but this may be confounded by centre characteristics.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00330-021-07965-z.

Double reading in breast cancer screening: considerations for policy-making

In this article, we explore the evidence around the relative benefits and harms of breast cancer screening using a single radiologist to examine each female's mammograms for signs of cancer (single reading), or two radiologists (double reading). First, we briefly explore the historical evidence using film-screen mammography, before providing an in-depth description of evidence using digital mammography. We classify studies according to which exact version of double reading they use, because the evidence suggests that effectiveness of double reading is contingent on whether the two radiologists are blinded to one another's decisions, and how the decisions of the two radiologists are integrated. Finally, we explore the implications for future mammography, including using artificial intelligence as the second reader, and applications to more complex three-dimensional imaging techniques such as tomosynthesis.

Recall and Outcome of Screen-detected Microcalcifications during 2 Decades of Mammography Screening in the Netherlands National Breast Screening Program

Background Trends in the detection of suspicious microcalcifications at mammography screening and the yield of these lesions after recall are unknown. Purpose To determine trends in recall and outcome of screen-detected microcalcifications during 20 years of mammography screening. Materials and Methods The authors performed a retrospective analysis of a consecutive series of 817 656 screening examinations (January 1997 to January 2017) in a national breast screening program. In 2009-2010 (transition period), screen-film mammography (SFM) was gradually replaced by full-field digital mammography (FFDM). The recalls of suspicious microcalcifications from all radiology reports and pathologic outcome of recalled women with 2-year follow-up were analyzed. Screening outcome in the era of SFM (1997-2008), the transition period (2009-2010), and the era of FFDM (2011-2016) were compared. Trends over time and variations between the SFM and FFDM periods were expressed by using proportions with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). In cases where the analysis based on the CI confirmed clear periods (eg, before and after introduction of FFDM), pre- and postchange outcomes were compared by using χ² tests. Results A total of 18 592 women (median age, 59 years; interquartile range, 14 years) were recalled at mammography screening, 3556 of whom had suspicious microcalcifications. The recall rate for microcalcifications increased from 0.1% in 1997-1998 to 0.5% in 2015-2016 (P < .001). This was temporally associated with the change from SFM to FFDM. The recalls yielding ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) increased from 0.3 per 1000 screening examinations with SFM to 1.1 per 1000 screening examinations with FFDM (P < .001), resulting in a decrease in the positive predictive value for recall for suspicious microcalcifications from 51% to 33% (P < .001). More than half of all DCIS lesions were high grade (52.6%; 393 of 747). The distribution of DCIS grades was stable during the 20-year screening period (P = .36). Conclusion The recall rate for suspicious microcalcifications at mammographic screening increased during the past 2 decades, whereas the ductal carcinoma in situ detection rate increased less rapidly, resulting in a lower positive predictive value for recall. © RSNA, 2020.

Breast cancers missed during screening in a tertiary-care hospital mammography facility

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer is the most common cancer in females worldwide. Screening with mammography for early breast cancer detection is standard community practice in many countries.

OBJECTIVE

Identify causes of missed breast cancers during screening.

DESIGN

Retrospective, observational.

SETTING

Department of radiology at a tertiary-care hospital mammographic screening facility.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All women who came with initial negative screens from July 2015 to July 2018 were retrospectively reviewed and followed-up for their second or subsequent mammographic screening. Missed breast cancer was defined as a cancer that was detected on a subsequent mammogram with an initial negative screen. Mammograms were interpreted by two radiologists as per BIRADS (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System) lexicon. Causes of missed breast cancers were categorized as imaging acquisition (IA), imaging feature (IF) and imaging interpretation (II). True (occult) incident breast cancers were also documented. Percentage estimations for these causes were calculated.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Breast cancer detection on follow-up screening.

SAMPLE SIZE

943 women.

RESULTS

Of 15 (1.6%) screening-detected breast cancers, 7 cases (46.6%) were missed on the initial screen; 3 (43%) of these were II related, 2 (28.5%) of each were IA and IF. The remaining true (occult) cases were detected on either the second (5 cases) or third screens (3 cases).

CONCLUSION

Improved screening facilities, quality mammographic acquisition and interpretation, double reading, and implementation of an organized screening program may help to avoid missed breast cancers.

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective, small sample, single center, and short duration study.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

None.

Trends in frequency and outcome of high-risk breast lesions at core needle biopsy in women recalled at biennial screening mammography, a multiinstitutional study

Between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2016, we studied the incidence, management and outcome of high‐risk breast lesions in a consecutive series of 376,519 screens of women who received biennial screening mammography. During the 6‐year period covered by the study, the proportion of women who underwent core needle biopsy (CNB) after recall remained fairly stable, ranging from 39.2% to 48.1% (mean: 44.2%, 5,212/11,783), whereas the proportion of high‐risk lesions at CNB (i.e., flat epithelial atypia, atypical ductal hyperplasia, lobular carcinoma in situ and papillary lesions) gradually increased from 3.2% (25/775) in 2011 to 9.5% (86/901) in 2016 (p < 0.001). The mean proportion of high‐risk lesions at CNB that were subsequently treated with diagnostic surgical excision was 51.4% (169/329) and varied between 41.0% and 64.3% through the years, but the excision rate for high‐risk lesions per 1,000 screens and per 100 recalls increased from 0.25 (2011) to 0.70 (2016; p < 0.001) and from 0.81 (2011) to 2.50 (2016; p < 0.001), respectively. The proportion of all diagnostic surgical excisions showing in situ or invasive breast cancer was 29.0% (49/169) and varied from 22.2% (8/36) in 2014 to 38.5% (5/13) in 2011. In conclusion, the proportion of high‐risk lesions at CNB tripled in a 6‐year period, with a concomitant increased excision rate for these lesions. As the proportion of surgical excisions showing in situ or invasive breast cancer did not increase, a rising number of screened women underwent invasive surgical excision with benign outcome.

What's new?

Screening mammography aims to catch breast cancer early to reduce associated morbidity and mortality. Women with suspect findings at mammography frequently are recalled for further testing with core needle biopsy (CNB). In this investigation, the proportion of high‐risk lesions detected at CNB was found to have tripled among women in the Netherlands who underwent mammographic screening between 2011 and 2016. This increase was accompanied by an increase in lesion excision rates. Of excised lesions, little more than 14% proved to be malignant at two‐year follow‐up. The remainder of lesions exhibited benign pathology, suggesting that many women underwent potentially unnecessary surgery.

Specialized Second Opinion Review of Breast MRI Impacts Management and Increases Cancer Detection

OBJECTIVE

The aim of our study is to determine MRI review discrepancy frequency and the subsequent impact on patient management for patients pursuing breast imaging second opinions.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was conducted on 1,000 consecutive patients with second opinion radiology interpretations performed by subspecialty-trained breast radiologists at a dedicated cancer center July 1 through December 31, 2016. Of these, 205 included review of outside breast MRI. Outside imaging reports were compared with second opinion reports to categorize breast MRI review discrepancies. These included relevant BI-RADS category changes or identification of additional extent of disease >4 cm. The discrepancy frequency, relevant alterations in patient management, and incremental cancer detection were measured. Statistical analyses were performed using Fisher's exact test.

RESULTS

Discrepant second opinion breast MRI review was seen in 36 of 205 patients (18%). Additional cancer was detected through image-guided biopsy in 3 of these 36 patients and through excision in 2 (5 of 205, 2%). Additionally, five biopsies yielded high-risk pathologic results without upstage on excision. Findings suspicious for additional extent of disease >4 cm were noted in five patients (2%) treated with mastectomies. Finally, five patients had BI-RADS category downgrades. Ultimately, completion of second opinion MRI review recommendations resulted in altered management in 10% of patients (20 of 205). The absence of prior imaging studies for comparison was associated with increased discrepancy frequency (P = .005).

CONCLUSION

Second opinion breast MRI review by subspecialized breast imaging radiologists increases cancer detection and results in clinically relevant changes in patient management.

Tumour characteristics of bilateral screen-detected cancers and bilateral interval cancers in women participating at biennial screening mammography

BACKGROUND

Unilateral interval breast cancers show less favourable prognostic features than unilateral screen-detected cancers, but data on tumour characteristics of bilateral interval cancers in a systematically screened population are sparse. Therefore, we compared tumour characteristics of bilateral interval cancers with those of bilateral screen-detected cancers.

METHODS

We included all 468,720 screening mammograms of women who underwent biennial screening mammography in the South of the Netherlands between January 2005 and January 2015. We collected breast imaging reports, biopsy results and surgical reports of all recalled women and of all women who presented with interval breast cancer. In women with synchronous bilateral breast cancer, the tumour with the highest tumour stage was defined as the index cancer. For comparison of data between both groups Fisher exact test and Chi-square test were used.

RESULTS

Synchronous bilateral cancer was diagnosed in 2.2% of screen-detected cancers (64/2947) and in 3.2% of interval cancers (24/753) (P = 0.1). Index tumours of bilateral screen-detected cancers and interval cancers showed similar characteristics, except for a larger proportion of T-stage 2 or worse (T2+) cancers among interval cancers (16/24 (66.7%) versus 23/58 (39.7%) (P = 0.03). Index cancers, compared to contralateral cancers, were less frequently stage T1 in both bilateral screen-detected cancers and bilateral interval cancers (35/64 (60.3%) versus 40/64 (88.9%) (P = 0.001) and 8/24 (33.3%) versus 18/24 (85.7%) (P < 0.001), respectively). In bilateral screen-detected cancers, contralateral cancers were more often stage 1a-c (P < 0.001) compared to index cancers. In bilateral index cancers, index cancers were more often of the lobular subtype (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Index cancers of bilateral screen-detected cancers and bilateral interval cancers show significant differences in tumour size, whereas nodal status, receptor status and final surgical treatment are comparable. In bilateral screen-detected cancer, index cancers had a significantly higher tumour stage. In bilateral screen-detected cancer, index cancers were more often the ductal invasive subtype compared to contralateral cancers.

Impact of the second reader on screening outcome at blinded double reading of digital screening mammograms

Background

To determine the impact of the second reader on screening outcome at blinded double reading of digital screening mammograms.

Methods

We included a consecutive series of 99,013 digital screening mammograms, obtained between July 2013 and January 2015 and double read in a blinded fashion. During 2-year follow-up, we collected radiology, surgery and pathology reports of recalled women.

Results

Single reading resulted in 2928 recalls and 616 screen-detected cancers (SDCs). The second reader recalled another 612 women, resulting in 82 additional SDCs. Addition of the second reader increased the recall rate (3.0% to 3.6%, p < 0.001), cancer detection rate (6.2–7.0 per 1000 screens, p < 0.001) and false positive recall rate (24.4–28.7 per 1000 screens, p < 0.001). Positive predictive value of recall (21.0% vs. 19.7%, p = 0.20) and of biopsy (52.1% vs. 50.9%, p = 0.56) were comparable for single reading and blinded double reading. Tumour characteristics were comparable for cancers detected by the first reader and cancers additionally detected by the second reader, except of a more favourable tumour grade in the latter group.

Conclusions

At blinded double reading, the second reader significantly increases the cancer detection rate, at the expense of an increased recall rate and false positive recall rate.

Characteristics of screen-detected cancers following concordant or discordant recalls at blinded double reading in biennial digital screening mammography

OBJECTIVES

To analyse which mammographic and tumour characteristics led to concordant versus discordant recalls at blinded double reading to further optimise our breast cancer screening programme.

METHODS

We included a consecutive series of 99,013 screening mammograms obtained between July 2013 and January 2015. All mammograms were double read in a blinded fashion. Discordant readings were routinely recalled without consensus or arbitration. During the 2-year follow-up, relevant data of the recalled women were collected. We compared mammographic characteristics, screening outcome and tumour characteristics between concordant and discordant recalls.

RESULTS

There were 2,543 concordant recalls (71.4%) and 997 discordant recalls (28.0%). The positive predictive value of a concordant recall was significantly higher (23.5% vs. 10.0%, p < 0.001). The proportion of BI-RADS 0 was significantly higher in the discordant recall group (75.7% vs. 56.3%, p < 0.001). Discordant recalls were more often an asymmetry or architectural distortion (21.8% vs. 13.2% and 9.3% vs. 6.5%, respectively, p < 0.001). There were no differences in the distribution of DCIS and invasive cancers and tumour characteristics were comparable for the two groups, except for a more favourable tumour grade in the discordant recall group (54.7% vs. 39.9% grade I tumours, p = 0.022).

CONCLUSIONS

Screen-detected cancers detected by a discordant reading show a more favourable tumour grade than cancers diagnosed after a concordant recall. The higher proportion of asymmetries and architectural distortions in this group provide a possible target for improving screening programmes by additional training of screening radiologists and the implementation of digital breast tomosynthesis.

KEY POINTS

• With blinded double reading of screening mammograms, screen-detected cancers detected by a discordant reading show a more favourable tumour grade than cancers diagnosed after a concordant recall. • The proportions of asymmetries and architectural distortions are higher in case of a discordant reading. • Possible improvement strategies could target additional training of screening radiologists and the implementation of digital breast tomosynthesis in breast cancer screening programmes.

Incidence and tumour characteristics of bilateral and unilateral interval breast cancers at screening mammography

BACKGROUND

Detected by screening mammography, bilateral breast cancer has a different pathological profile compared to unilateral breast cancer. We investigated the incidence of bilateral interval breast cancers and compared their characteristics with those of unilateral interval breast cancers.

METHODS

We included all 468,720 screening mammograms of women who underwent biennial screening mammography in the South of the Netherlands between January 2005 and January 2015. We collected breast imaging reports, biopsy results and surgical reports of all referred women and of all women who presented with interval breast cancer. The tumour with the highest tumour stage (index cancer) was used for comparison with unilateral interval cancers.

RESULTS

A total of 753 interval cancers were detected, of which 24 (3.2%) were bilateral. Among the invasive interval cancers, bilateral cancers more frequently showed a lobular histology than unilateral cancers (37.5% (9/24) vs. 16.1% (111/691), P = .01). There is a trend towards a larger proportion of bilateral than unilateral interval cancers graded 1 (45.8% (11/24) vs. 27.8% (192/691), P = .08). There were no other statistically significant differences in tumour characteristics. Also, the proportion of interval cancers showing significant mammographic abnormalities at the latest screen was comparable for unilateral and bilateral interval cancers (23.0% vs. 25.0%, P = .9).

DISCUSSION

Bilateral interval cancers comprise a small proportion of all interval cancers. Except of a higher proportion of invasive lobular cancers and a more favourable histological grade of invasive cancers, tumour characteristics are comparable for bilateral and unilateral interval breast cancers.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of double reading in digital mammography screening: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Double reading is the strategy of choice for mammogram interpretation in screening programmes. It remains, however, unknown whether double reading is still the strategy of choice in the context of digital mammography. Our aim was to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of double reading versus single reading of digital mammograms in screening programmes.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review by searching the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases up to April 2017. We used the QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) tool and CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards) checklist to assess the methodological quality of the diagnostic studies and economic evaluations, respectively. A proportion's meta-analysis approach, 95% Confidence Intervals (95% CI) and test of heterogeneity (P values) were used for pooled results. Costs are expressed US$ PPP (United States Dollar purchasing power parities). The PROSPERO ID of this Systematic Review's protocol is CRD42014013804.

RESULTS

Of 1473 potentially relevant hits, four high-quality studies were included. The pooled cancer detection rate of double reading was 6.01 per 1000 screens (CI: 4.47‰-7.77‰), and it was 5.65 per 1000 screens (CI: 3.95‰-7.65‰) for single reading (P=0.76). The pooled proportion of false-positives of double reading was 47.03 per 1000 screens (CI: 39.13‰-55.62‰) and it was 40.60 per 1000 screens (CI: 38.58‰-42.67‰) for single reading (P=0.12). One study reported, for double reading, an ICER (Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio) of 16,684 Euros (24,717 US$ PPP; 2015 value) per detected cancer. Single reading+CAD (computer-aided-detection) was cost-effective in Japan.

CONCLUSION

The evidence of benefit for double reading compared to single reading for digital mammography interpretation is scarce. Double reading seems to increase operational costs, have a not significantly higher false-positive rate, and a similar cancer detection rate.

Trends in incidence and tumour grade in screen-detected ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive breast cancer

PURPOSE

In a biennial screening mammography programme, we analysed the trends in incidence of screen-detected DCIS and invasive breast cancers in the era of screen-film mammography (SFM) screening, the period of the transition to full-field digital mammography (FFDM) screening and the period of FFDM screening. We also investigated a possible association between the incidence and grading of screen-detected DCIS and invasive breast cancer.

METHODS

In the southern part of the Netherlands, FFDM screening gradually replaced SFM screening between May 2009 and April 2010. We included a consecutive series of 484, 422 screens obtained between July 2005 and July 2015 and divided these screens into three groups; SFM-only cohort, transition cohort and FFDM-only cohort.

RESULTS

A total of 3059 referred women were diagnosed with DCIS (n = 623) or invasive breast cancer (n = 2436). The majority of DCIS were high-grade (48.2%), whereas the majority of the invasive breast cancers were low-grade (45.4%) or intermediate-grade (41.6%). The cancer detection rate (CDR) per 1000 screened women showed the same distribution by grade in both groups. The transition to FFDM was characterised by an increased overall detection rate of invasive cancers.

CONCLUSIONS

Screening mammography detects mostly high-grade DCIS and low- or intermediate-grade invasive cancers. The grade distribution as well as the CDR in the years after the introduction of FFDM remained stable compared to the era of SFM screening. By diagnosing and treating high-grade DCIS, which otherwise may develop into high-grade invasive carcinoma, our findings provide new evidence for the beneficial value of screening mammography programmes.

Cost-Effectiveness of Double Reading versus Single Reading of Mammograms in a Breast Cancer Screening Programme

OBJECTIVES

The usual practice in breast cancer screening programmes for mammogram interpretation is to perform double reading. However, little is known about its cost-effectiveness in the context of digital mammography. Our purpose was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of double reading versus single reading of digital mammograms in a population-based breast cancer screening programme.

METHODS

Data from 28,636 screened women was used to establish a decision-tree model and to compare three strategies: 1) double reading; 2) double reading for women in their first participation and single reading for women in their subsequent participations; and 3) single reading. We calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), which was defined as the expected cost per one additionally detected cancer. We performed a deterministic sensitivity analysis to test the robustness of the ICER.

RESULTS

The detection rate of double reading (5.17‰) was similar to that of single reading (4.78‰; P = .768). The mean cost of each detected cancer was €8,912 for double reading and €8,287 for single reading. The ICER of double reading versus single reading was €16,684. The sensitivity analysis showed variations in the ICER according to the sensitivity of reading strategies. The strategy that combines double reading in first participation with single reading in subsequent participations was ruled out due to extended dominance.

CONCLUSIONS

From our results, double reading appears not to be a cost-effective strategy in the context of digital mammography. Double reading would eventually be challenged in screening programmes, as single reading might entail important net savings without significantly changing the cancer detection rate. These results are not conclusive and should be confirmed in prospective studies that investigate long-term outcomes like quality adjusted life years (QALYs).

How are we going to train a generation of radiologists (and urologists) to read prostate MRI?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Multiparametric MRI has gained tremendous importance in the daily practice for patients at risk or diagnosed with prostate cancer. Interpretation of multiparametric-MRI is a complex task, supposedly restricted to experienced radiologists. The purpose of this review is to analyze fundamentals of multiparametric-MRI interpretation and to describe how multiparametric-MRI training could be organized.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recently, professional guidelines have been published to provide technical and interpretation frameworks and harmonize multiparametric-MRI practice, but the question of physicians training in prostate multiparametric-MRI reading is still pending. What kind of education, practice, and training makes a radiologist able to reliably interpret a prostate multiparametric-MRI? How can findings be reported to be easily understood? How much experience is needed? How can we train urologists and other physicians to review the examinations they request? Is double-reading necessary?

SUMMARY

An institutional-based competency certification process for prostate multiparametric-MRI interpretation may encourage nonspecialized radiologists to qualify for prostate imaging in a standardized and reproducible way, exactly as urologists need it.

Comparison of the diagnostic workup of women referred at non-blinded or blinded double reading in a population-based screening mammography programme in the south of the Netherlands

Background:

To determine whether referred women experience differences in diagnostic workup at non-blinded or blinded double reading of screening mammograms.

Methods:

We included a consecutive series of respectively 42.996 and 44.491 screens, double read either in a non-blinded or blinded manner between 2009 and 2011. This reading strategy was alternated on a monthly basis.

Results:

The overall ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy (CNB) rate and stereotactic CNB (SCNB) rate per 1000 screens were higher at blinded than at non-blinded reading (7.5 vs 6.0, P=0.008 and 8.1 vs 6.6, P=0.009). Among women with benign workup, these rates were higher at blinded reading (2.6 vs 1.4, P<0.001 and 5.9 vs 4.7, P=0.013). The benign biopsy rates were higher at blinded double reading (P<0.001), whereas the positive predictive value of biopsy did not differ (P=0.103).

Conclusions:

Blinded double-reading results in higher overall CNB and SCNB rates than non-blinded double reading, as well as a higher benign biopsy rate.