Background: This study aimed to compare the type and extent of surgery in patients with screen-detected and interval cancers after blinded or nonblinded double-reading of screening mammograms.
Methods: The study investigated a consecutive series of screens double-read in either a blinded (n = 44,491) or nonblinded (n = 42,996) fashion between 2009 and 2011. During a 2 year follow-up period, the radiology reports, surgical correspondence, and pathology reports of all the screen-detected and interval cancers were collected.
Results: Screen-detected breast cancer was diagnosed for 325 women at blinded and 284 women at nonblinded double-reading. The majority of the women were treated by breast-conserving surgery (BCS) at both reading strategies (78.2 vs. 81.7 %; p = 0.51). Larger total resection volumes were observed at BCS for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) treatment for patients after blinded double-reading (p = 0.005). The proportions of positive resection margins after BCS were comparable for patients with DCIS (p = 0.81) or invasive screen-detected cancers (p = 0.38) for the two reading strategies. A total of 158 interval cancers were diagnosed. The proportions of patients treated with BCS were comparable for the two reading strategies (p = 0.42). The total resection volume (p = 0.13) and the proportion of positive resection margins after BCS (p = 0.32) for invasive interval cancer were comparable for the two cohorts. The BCS rate was higher for women after nonblinded double-reading (p = 0.04).
Conclusions: Blinded and nonblinded double-reading yielded comparable surgical treatments for women with screen-detected or interval breast cancer except for larger total resection volumes at BCS for screen-detected DCIS and a higher BCS rate for interval cancers at nonblinded double-reading.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
|---|---|
| http://dx.doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5295-z | DOI Listing |
Publication Analysis
Top Keywords
Similar Publications
Type and Extent of Surgery for Screen-Detected and Interval Cancers at Blinded Versus Nonblinded Double-Reading in a Population-Based Screening Mammography Program.
Ann Surg Oncol
November 2016
Department of Radiology, Canisius-Wilhelmina Hospital, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Background: This study aimed to compare the type and extent of surgery in patients with screen-detected and interval cancers after blinded or nonblinded double-reading of screening mammograms.
Methods: The study investigated a consecutive series of screens double-read in either a blinded (n = 44,491) or nonblinded (n = 42,996) fashion between 2009 and 2011. During a 2 year follow-up period, the radiology reports, surgical correspondence, and pathology reports of all the screen-detected and interval cancers were collected.
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.
Br J Cancer
September 2015
Department of Radiology, Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital, PO Box 9015, 6500 GS Nijmegen, 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.
Arbitration of discrepant BI-RADS 0 recalls by a third reader at screening mammography lowers recall rate but not the cancer detection rate and sensitivity at blinded and non-blinded double reading.
Breast
October 2015
Department of Radiology, Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital, PO Box 9015, 6500 GS Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Purpose: To evaluate the characteristics of low suspicion lesions (BI-RADS 0) at blinded and non-blinded double reading of screening mammograms and to determine the potential effect of arbitration of discrepant BI-RADS 0 recalls by a third reader on screening outcome.
Methods: We included a series of 84,927 consecutive digital screening mammograms, double read in a blinded (43,184 screens) or non-blinded (41,743 screens) fashion, between July 2009 and July 2011. Discrepant readings were routinely recalled for further evaluation.
Discrepant screening mammography assessments at blinded and non-blinded double reading: impact of arbitration by a third reader on screening outcome.
Eur Radiol
October 2015
Department of Radiology, Catharina Hospital, PO Box 1350, 5602 ZA, Eindhoven, The Netherlands,
Objectives: To determine the value of adding a third reader for arbitration of discrepant screening mammography assessments.
Methods: We included a consecutive series of 84,927 digital screening mammograms, double read in a blinded or non-blinded fashion. Arbitration was retrospectively performed by a third screening radiologist.
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.
Eur J Cancer
February 2015
Department of Radiology, Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital, PO Box 9015, 6500 GS Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
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).
Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!