HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 2312030665v1 231/2/564    most recent Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Duijm, L. E. M. Articles by de Koning, H. J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Duijm, L. E. M. Articles by de Koning, H. J.

Independent Double Reading of Screening Mammograms in the Netherlands: Effect of Arbitration Following Reader Disagreements¹

¹ From the Department of Radiology, Catharina Hospital, Michelangelolaan 2, 5623 EJ Eindhoven, the Netherlands (L.E.M.D.); Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC-University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (J.H.G., H.J.d.K.); and Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Nijmegen, the Netherlands (J.H.C.L.H.). Received April 27, 2003; revision requested July 8; final revision received September 26; accepted October 21. Address correspondence to L.E.M.D. (e-mail: LEMDuijm@hotmail.com).

PURPOSE: To prospectively determine the value of arbitration by a panel of radiologists when two radiologists performing independent readings of screening mammograms do not reach a consensus about referral.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study population consisted of women who participated in the Dutch Nationwide Breast Cancer Screening Program, in which biennial screening is offered to women aged 50–75 years. An arbitration panel of three radiologists assessed those screening mammograms for which two screening radiologists did not reach a consensus about referral necessity. Women were referred for further analysis if at least one arbitration panel radiologist considered referral to be necessary.

RESULTS: The two screening radiologists agreed on the recommendation for referral of 498 (0.8%) of 65,779 screened women and on the recommendation for no referral of 64,949 (98.7%) women. They initially disagreed about the referral in 332 (0.5%) cases. After a mutual consultation, disagreement persisted regarding 183 (0.3%) mammograms. The arbitration panel referred 89 of these cases for further analysis, which revealed cancer in 20 (22%) cases. In three (3%) of the 94 cases that were not referred by the panel, breast cancer was detected at the site of previously discrepant mammographic findings seen at subsequent screening performed 2 years later. If all 183 discrepant cases had been referred, the referral rate would have increased from 0.8% to 0.9% at subsequent (incident) screenings and from 1.5% to 1.7% at initial screenings. In addition, at subsequent screenings, the number of cancers detected per 1,000 women screened would have increased from 4.4 to 4.5.

CONCLUSION: Mammograms with discrepant findings constitute a very important subset of screening mammograms. All lesions that are subsequently proved to be malignant may not be detected with panel arbitration.

© RSNA, 2004

Index terms: Breast neoplasms, 00.31, 00.32 • Breast radiography, 00.11 • Breast radiography, quality assurance • Cancer screening • Diagnostic radiology, observer performance

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S. Taplin, L. Abraham, W. E. Barlow, J. J. Fenton, E. A. Berns, P. A. Carney, G. R. Cutter, E. A. Sickles, D. Carl, and J. G. Elmore Mammography Facility Characteristics Associated With Interpretive Accuracy of Screening Mammography J Natl Cancer Inst, June 18, 2008; 100(12): 876 - 887. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. Skaane, S. Hofvind, and A. Skjennald Randomized Trial of Screen-Film versus Full-Field Digital Mammography with Soft-Copy Reading in Population-based Screening Program: Follow-up and Final Results of Oslo II Study Radiology, September 1, 2007; 244(3): 708 - 717. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. E. M. Duijm, J. H. Groenewoud, J. Fracheboud, and H. J. de Koning Additional Double Reading of Screening Mammograms by Radiologic Technologists: Impact on Screening Performance Parameters J Natl Cancer Inst, August 1, 2007; 99(15): 1162 - 1170. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. Skaane, A. Kshirsagar, S. Stapleton, K. Young, and R. A. Castellino Effect of Computer-Aided Detection on Independent Double Reading of Paired Screen-Film and Full-Field Digital Screening Mammograms Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2007; 188(2): 377 - 384. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]