Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Published online before print September 11, 2007, 10.1148/radiol.2451061798
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
2451061798v1
245/2/411    most recent
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gordon, P. B.
Right arrow Articles by Warren Burhenne, L. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Gordon, P. B.
Right arrow Articles by Warren Burhenne, L. J.
(Radiology 2007;245:411-415.)
© RSNA, 2007

Breast Imaging

A True Screening Environment for Review of Interval Breast Cancers: Pilot Study to Reduce Bias1

Paula B. Gordon, MD, Marilyn J. Borugian, PhD, and Linda J. Warren Burhenne, MD

1 From the Screening Mammography Program of British Columbia, British Columbia Cancer Agency, 686 W Broadway, 8th Floor, Vancouver, BC, Canada V5Z 1G1. From the 2006 RSNA Annual Meeting. Received October 18, 2006; revision requested December 19; revision received January 12, 2007; final version accepted February 12. Address correspondence to P.B.G.

Purpose: To retrospectively assess the feasibility of an uninformed review process to evaluate interval breast cancers and to compare the number of false-negative cancers detected at uninformed review with the number detected at standard informed review.

Materials and Methods: Institutional review board approval was obtained for this retrospective study, and informed consent was waived. Mammograms showing interval cancer were included in the daily work of radiologists in a high-volume screening center. Each of three experienced radiologists read studies in the normal screening environment, without knowledge that identifiers had been changed to conceal the fact that studies were not current (ie, uninformed review). Results were compared with the standard review procedure, in which mammograms showing interval cancers were mixed with normal mammograms and read in a panel of 17–20 interval cancers per 80 normal studies by radiologists who were aware that they were participating in a review process (ie, informed review).

Results: Of 21 interval cancers, six (29%) were interpreted as positive more often by the informed radiologists than by the uninformed radiologists. For 14 (67%) cancers, there was no difference in detection rate between the two groups, and one cancer (5%) was seen by one of the uninformed radiologists but by none of the informed radiologists. The screening environment review process was found to be feasible at the low volumes tested.

Conclusion: The number of false-negative cancers was higher in the informed review than in the uninformed review. This result suggests that bias exists with the informed review process.

© RSNA, 2007