| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Breast Imaging |
1 From the Saskatchewan Cancer Agency, Epidemiology, Prevention and Screening, 4101 Dewdney Ave, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada S4T 7T1. Received March 26, 1998; revision requested May 12; final revision received August 17; accepted October 26. Address reprint requests to J.M.T.
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 TOP Abstract IntroductionMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONReferences |
|---|
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A technologist review pilot project was incorporated into the Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada, reading center. Technologists received special training in mammographic interpretation. They reviewed all 27,863 mammograms obtained at the center from July 1995 to September 1996 that were reviewed by a radiologist and selected cases for second blind reading by another radiologist. When the two radiologists' readings were in agreement, the report was sent. When the readings differed, a third opinion was obtained from the program's consulting radiologist. Changes in the number of mammograms interpreted as abnormal and the number of cancers detected were assessed.
RESULTS: The technologist review was responsible for the detection of nine cancers missed at the first radiologist's interpretation. Technologists were very discriminating; only 391 cases (1.4%) were sent for double reading. The positive predictive value of screening did not change significantly (7.5% without review, 8.1% with review; P > .20).
CONCLUSION: A substantial number of cancers were found with the technologist review. The number of mammograms interpreted as abnormal was reduced slightly. The technologist review proved to be a cost-effective alternative to double reading by two radiologists.
Index terms: Breast neoplasms, diagnosis, 00.11, 00.30 • Cancer screening, 00.11, 00.30 • Diagnostic radiology, observer performance
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
TOPAbstractIntroductionMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONReferences |
|---|
Double reading of mammograms, however, has been shown to increase the number of cancers detected (1,2). The additional cost of double reading by radiologists was considered prohibitive because our government-funded program operates on a fixed budget. We realized, however, that our medical radiologic technologists—because of their considerable experience, dedication, and specific training—were becoming adept at recognizing mammographic abnormalities. Research has shown that radiographers can be trained to identify mammographic abnormalities and that they can be used as second readers in screening mammography (3,4). We therefore proposed a reading format that involves a technologist review of screening mammograms. The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of a technologist review program on the number of cancers detected and the number of mammograms interpreted as abnormal.
|
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
|---|
|
TOPAbstractIntroductionMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONReferences |
|---|
Each mammogram was reviewed by one of three technologists prior to interpretation by one of five radiologists (including J.P.H. and C.H.L.). The radiologist was blinded to this result. Technologists compared their interpretations with the radiology report. When the interpretations differed, the case was remounted on a light box for a second reading by another radiologist. He or she was blinded to the first interpretation. If both radiologists were in agreement, then the report was sent out. When there was a discrepancy, the case was submitted to the program's consulting radiologist (C.H.L.) for a third opinion. The consulting radiologist was aware that he or she was providing a third interpretation but was blinded to the previous interpretations.
The initial and final interpretations were recorded for all cases selected for double reading. All abnormal cases in our screening program were followed up by obtaining the diagnostic assessments and surgical and pathology reports. True- and false-positive rates then were determined. All normal cases were checked against our population-based cancer registry every 2 weeks to check for interval cancers, or cancers detected in women who had a normal result at screening mammography but in whom breast cancer was later diagnosed prior to their next scheduled date for screening mammography. This allowed calculation of true- and false-negative screening rates.
A 95% CI for the proportion of cancers found as a result of the technologist review was used to determine significance, assuming a Poisson distribution for the cancers detected (5). The change in the number of abnormalities because of the review was noted. The influence of the technologist review on the number of cancers detected and the rate of abnormal interpretations combined was determined by calculating the difference between the positive predictive value of screening with and the positive predictive value of screening without the technologist review process. Significance for the difference in proportions was determined by using the two-tailed standardized normal deviate (6), and the 95% CI for the difference in proportions was calculated (5).
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
TOPAbstractIntroductionMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONReferences |
|---|
|
As a result of the third reading, 86 of the original 192 normal mammograms picked for review were interpreted as abnormal and 144 of the original 199 abnormal mammograms chosen for review were interpreted as normal. Overall, the number of mammograms interpreted as abnormal was reduced by 58 cases (144 - 86 cases). To date, no interval cancers have been detected in the group with interpretations changed from abnormal to normal. As well, 51 of the 144 women with interpretations changed from abnormal to normal have returned for screening mammography, and 48 had mammograms that were subsequently interpreted as normal. The three women with abnormal mammograms were determined, after diagnostic follow-up, not to have cancer.
In the Table, the outcomes for the screening program with the technologist review are compared with the outcomes that would have occurred without the review. The number of mammograms interpreted as abnormal was reduced by 2.8%, and the number of cancers detected was increased by 5.8% (Table). The nine additional cancers detected represents 5.5% of all cancers detected during the study (95% CI: 2.0%, 8.9%). The combined effect of fewer abnormal interpretations and more cancer detections was a slight nonsignificant increase of 8.7% in the positive predictive value of the screening program (P > .40; 95% CI: -13.1%, 30.7%).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TOPAbstractIntroductionMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONReferences |
|---|
Our system of technologist review may not be applicable to every program. A number of criteria are essential to a successful review process. A close working relationship between radiologists and technologists is paramount. Radiologists must have a positive attitude toward technologists' input. Limiting the number of radiologists (in our case, five) and technologists (in our case, three) involved greatly enhances cooperation. The radiologists should be accessible at a time of day when the technologists are available for discussion so that cases can be reviewed and questions answered.
Only experienced technologists should be involved in the review process. This experience should include the review of large numbers of mammograms, along with diagnostic follow-up when mammograms are abnormal. Our technologists obtain this experience by preparing and attending our monthly quality assurance sessions. At these meetings, we also review any false-negative cases we have become aware of by checking with our cancer registry. These sessions help foster good communication between radiologists and technologists and improve overall mammographic skills. Our technologists also receive additional training in mammographic interpretation by attending courses in mammography.
The radiologists involved with our screening program have Canadian certification in radiology. In 1995, radiologists who participated in this project each read an average of 4,300 screening mammograms from the program, in addition to the diagnostic evaluations they performed at hospitals and in their group practices. In total, these radiologists have read approximately 78,000 screening mammograms from our program since 1990. Their combined false-negative rate for the first 5 years was three cases per 10,000 mammograms, and their combined sensitivity was 95.3% (488 of 512 cancers) (Screening Program for Breast Cancer, unpublished data, 1995).
Our results are favorable in that our cancer detection rate increased without an increase in the rate at which mammograms were interpreted as abnormal. Other positive outcomes are less quantifiable but real. Having the technologists involved in interpretation made them more aware of the importance of good positioning and optimal mammographic quality. This also made them more interested in obtaining complete follow-up of abnormal cases and were very helpful in this regard. Radiologists became more aware of their reporting record and certainly strived to keep their "technologist-assisted" cases to a minimum by optimizing their interpretation of mammograms and detection of cancer.
Continuous follow-up of reviewed cases is essential. All cases in which results are changed because of the review must be followed up. We must know how many additional cancers were detected by changing the interpretation from normal to abnormal. If few additional cancers are detected, then such a program may not be justified. Follow-up of cases in which the interpretation changed from abnormal to normal, however, is equally important. We do not want to miss detectable cancers. To date, no false-negative cancers have been diagnosed in review cases in which the interpretations changed to normal. We have therefore decreased the number of false-positive cases. This in turn has resulted in fewer diagnostic follow-up evaluations and has reduced the anxiety of patients. However, given the medicolegal implications of false-negative cases, we are very careful not to overly reduce our false-positive rate.
There are some drawbacks to such a program. There is an increase in the time required for the technologist to review mammograms, remount mammograms on the light box, and document findings. At the stationary center, one technologist will dedicate 2–3 h/d for these tasks, which are now part of the technologists' regular duties. This increases the cost of the screening program slightly because more technologist time is required. This increase, however, is substantially less than the cost of double reading by radiologists. Some additional radiologist time is also required for the second and third readings. The technologists were very discriminating, however, in remounting only 1.4% of all mammograms. Currently, our radiologists do not receive payment for these readings, but this is under review. The review process also delays our mailing of final reports of cases reviewed. Family physicians have indicated, however, that quality screening that involves double reading is preferred over single reading, even if there is a slight delay involved (9). Most reports are mailed out within a week from the mammography date, which we believe is reasonable.
These results represent the experience from a population-based screening situation, not from testing or training conditions. In our program, the technologist review has been a positive experience. The review is now ongoing and has expanded to include our second stationary center. The technologist review is now an integral part of our quality assurance program. The review has helped us achieve our goal of maximum cancer detection while maintaining a reasonable rate of interpretation of mammograms as abnormal.
|
Acknowledgments |
|---|
|
Footnotes |
|---|
|
References |
|---|
|
TOPAbstractIntroductionMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONReferences |
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  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]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. C. Harvey, B. Geller, R. G. Oppenheimer, M. Pinet, L. Riddell, and B. Garra Increase in Cancer Detection and Recall Rates with Independent Double Interpretation of Screening Mammography Am. J. Roentgenol., May 1, 2003; 180(5): 1461 - 1467. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. H. Sumkin, B. L. Holbert, J. S. Herrmann, C. A. Hakim, M. A. Ganott, W. R. Poller, R. Shah, L. A. Hardesty, and D. Gur Optimal Reference Mammography: A Comparison of Mammograms Obtained 1 and 2 Years Before the Present Examination Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2003; 180(2): 343 - 346. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. Paquette, J. Snider, F. Bouchard, I. Olivotto, H. Bryant, K. Decker, G. Doyle, and for the Database Management Subcommittee for The C Performance of screening mammography in organized programs in Canada in 1996 Can. Med. Assoc. J., October 1, 2000; 163(9): 1133 - 1138. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. M. Friedenberg The Role of the Supertechnologist Radiology, June 1, 2000; 215(3): 630 - 633. [Full Text]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| RADIOLOGY | RADIOGRAPHICS | RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE |
