Forskning
Udskriv Udskriv
Switch language
Rigshospitalet - en del af Københavns Universitetshospital
Udgivet

Screening mammography: benefit of double reading by breast density

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Harvard

Euler-Chelpin, MV, Lillholm, M, Napolitano, G, Vejborg, I, Nielsen, M & Lynge, E 2018, 'Screening mammography: benefit of double reading by breast density' Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, bind 171, nr. 3, s. 767-776. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-018-4864-1

APA

Euler-Chelpin, M. V., Lillholm, M., Napolitano, G., Vejborg, I., Nielsen, M., & Lynge, E. (2018). Screening mammography: benefit of double reading by breast density. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, 171(3), 767-776. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-018-4864-1

CBE

MLA

Vancouver

Author

Euler-Chelpin, My von ; Lillholm, Martin ; Napolitano, George ; Vejborg, Ilse ; Nielsen, Mads ; Lynge, Elsebeth. / Screening mammography : benefit of double reading by breast density. I: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment. 2018 ; Bind 171, Nr. 3. s. 767-776.

Bibtex

@article{bbe0e954c6ea4e89940d2d00b3bee107,
title = "Screening mammography: benefit of double reading by breast density",
abstract = "PURPOSE: The currently recommended double reading of all screening mammography examinations is an economic burden for screening programs. The sensitivity of screening is higher for women with low breast density than for women with high density. One may therefore ask whether single reading could replace double reading at least for women with low density. We addressed this question using data from a screening program where the radiologists coded their readings independently.METHODS: Data include all screening mammography examinations in the Capital Region of Denmark from 1 November 2012 to 31 December 2013. Outcome of screening was assessed by linkage to the Danish Pathology Register. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, number of interval cancers, and false positive-tests per 1000 screened women by both single reader and consensus BI-RADS density code.RESULTS: In total 54,808 women were included. The overall sensitivity of double reading was 72{\%}, specificity was 97.6{\%}, 3 women per 1000 screened experienced an interval cancer, and 24 a false-positive test. Across all BI-RADS density codes, single reading consistently decreased sensitivity as compared with consensus reading. The same was true for specificity, apart from results across BI-RADS density codes set by reader 2.CONCLUSIONS: Single reading decreased sensitivity as compared with double reading across all BI-RADS density codes. This included results based on consensus BI-RADS density codes. This means that replacement of double with single reading would have negative consequences for the screened women, even if density could be assessed automatically calibrated to the usual consensus level.",
keywords = "Aged, Breast Density/physiology, Breast Neoplasms/diagnosis, Denmark/epidemiology, Early Detection of Cancer, Female, Humans, Mammography, Mass Screening, Middle Aged",
author = "Euler-Chelpin, {My von} and Martin Lillholm and George Napolitano and Ilse Vejborg and Mads Nielsen and Elsebeth Lynge",
year = "2018",
month = "10",
doi = "10.1007/s10549-018-4864-1",
language = "English",
volume = "171",
pages = "767--776",
journal = "Breast Cancer Research and Treatment",
issn = "0167-6806",
publisher = "Springer New York LLC",
number = "3",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Screening mammography

T2 - benefit of double reading by breast density

AU - Euler-Chelpin, My von

AU - Lillholm, Martin

AU - Napolitano, George

AU - Vejborg, Ilse

AU - Nielsen, Mads

AU - Lynge, Elsebeth

PY - 2018/10

Y1 - 2018/10

N2 - PURPOSE: The currently recommended double reading of all screening mammography examinations is an economic burden for screening programs. The sensitivity of screening is higher for women with low breast density than for women with high density. One may therefore ask whether single reading could replace double reading at least for women with low density. We addressed this question using data from a screening program where the radiologists coded their readings independently.METHODS: Data include all screening mammography examinations in the Capital Region of Denmark from 1 November 2012 to 31 December 2013. Outcome of screening was assessed by linkage to the Danish Pathology Register. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, number of interval cancers, and false positive-tests per 1000 screened women by both single reader and consensus BI-RADS density code.RESULTS: In total 54,808 women were included. The overall sensitivity of double reading was 72%, specificity was 97.6%, 3 women per 1000 screened experienced an interval cancer, and 24 a false-positive test. Across all BI-RADS density codes, single reading consistently decreased sensitivity as compared with consensus reading. The same was true for specificity, apart from results across BI-RADS density codes set by reader 2.CONCLUSIONS: Single reading decreased sensitivity as compared with double reading across all BI-RADS density codes. This included results based on consensus BI-RADS density codes. This means that replacement of double with single reading would have negative consequences for the screened women, even if density could be assessed automatically calibrated to the usual consensus level.

AB - PURPOSE: The currently recommended double reading of all screening mammography examinations is an economic burden for screening programs. The sensitivity of screening is higher for women with low breast density than for women with high density. One may therefore ask whether single reading could replace double reading at least for women with low density. We addressed this question using data from a screening program where the radiologists coded their readings independently.METHODS: Data include all screening mammography examinations in the Capital Region of Denmark from 1 November 2012 to 31 December 2013. Outcome of screening was assessed by linkage to the Danish Pathology Register. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, number of interval cancers, and false positive-tests per 1000 screened women by both single reader and consensus BI-RADS density code.RESULTS: In total 54,808 women were included. The overall sensitivity of double reading was 72%, specificity was 97.6%, 3 women per 1000 screened experienced an interval cancer, and 24 a false-positive test. Across all BI-RADS density codes, single reading consistently decreased sensitivity as compared with consensus reading. The same was true for specificity, apart from results across BI-RADS density codes set by reader 2.CONCLUSIONS: Single reading decreased sensitivity as compared with double reading across all BI-RADS density codes. This included results based on consensus BI-RADS density codes. This means that replacement of double with single reading would have negative consequences for the screened women, even if density could be assessed automatically calibrated to the usual consensus level.

KW - Aged

KW - Breast Density/physiology

KW - Breast Neoplasms/diagnosis

KW - Denmark/epidemiology

KW - Early Detection of Cancer

KW - Female

KW - Humans

KW - Mammography

KW - Mass Screening

KW - Middle Aged

U2 - 10.1007/s10549-018-4864-1

DO - 10.1007/s10549-018-4864-1

M3 - Journal article

VL - 171

SP - 767

EP - 776

JO - Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

JF - Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

SN - 0167-6806

IS - 3

ER -

ID: 55811632