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) 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 Hofvind, S. Articles by Bjurstam, N. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Hofvind, S. Articles by Bjurstam, N.

Influence of Review Design on Percentages of Missed Interval Breast Cancers: Retrospective Study of Interval Cancers in a Population-based Screening Program¹

¹ From the Cancer Registry of Norway, Montebello, N-0310 Oslo, Norway (S.H., S.T.); Ullevål University Hospital, Oslo, Norway (P.S.); Linköping University Hospital, Linköping, Sweden (B.V.); Directorate for Health and Social Affairs, Oslo, Norway (H.W.); Central Hospital, Rogaland County, Stavanger, Norway (L.E.); Norwegian Radium Hospital, Oslo, Norway (H.B.); Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway (A.B.); and University of North-Norway, Tromsø, Norway (N.B.). Received July 26, 2004; revision requested October 1; revision received November 10; accepted December 17. Address correspondence to S.H. (e-mail: solveig.hofvind{at}kreftregisteret.no).

PURPOSE: To retrospectively investigate whether different review designs have an influence on the estimate of missed interval cancer in a population-based breast cancer screening program.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program invites women aged 50–69 years to undergo biennial screening mammography. The current study was part of the evaluation and scientific aspects of the screening program and thus was covered by the general ethical approval of the screening program as a part of the Cancer Registry of Norway. All participants signed an informed consent that specified that data related to their screening visit could be used for evaluation and scientific purposes. Six radiologists (9–34 years of experience in mammography) reviewed previously obtained bilateral two-view screening and diagnostic mammograms of 231 interval cancers, 117 screening-detected cancers, and 373 normal cases. Four review designs were used: individual and paired blinded review and individual and consensus informed review. A five-point interpretation scale was used to reclassify the cancers into missed cancers, minimal signs, and true cancers. The number and proportion of subgroups were estimated with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS: Of 231 interval cancers, 46 (19.9%) were reclassified as missed cancers with the mixed blinded individual review and 54 (23.4%) were classified as missed cancers with the mixed blinded paired review. Eighty-three cancers (35.9%) were classified as missed cancers with individual informed review, and 78 (33.8%) were classified as missed cancers with consensus informed review. Thirty-nine cancers (16.8%) were reclassified as missed when four or more radiologists assigned a score of 2 or more (probably benign or more suspicious); three cancers (1.3%) were reclassified as missed when a score of 4 or more (probably malignant or more suspicious) was assigned.

CONCLUSION: The percentage of interval cancers classified as missed ranged from 1.3% to 35.9% according to review design. To encourage learning, a review protocol should include both blinded and informed designs.

© RSNA, 2005

This article has been cited by other articles:

				P. B. Gordon, M. J. Borugian, and L. J. Warren Burhenne A True Screening Environment for Review of Interval Breast Cancers: Pilot Study to Reduce Bias Radiology, November 1, 2007; 245(2): 411 - 415. [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]

				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]