Iran J Radiol. 2013 Jun;10(2):51-5. doi: 10.5812/iranjradiol.11729. Epub 2013 May 20.

Performance of double reading mammography in an Iranian population and its effect on patient outcome.

Iranian journal of radiology : a quarterly journal published by the Iranian Radiological Society

Maryam Moradi, Kobra Ganji, Niloufar Teyfouri, Farzaneh Kolahdoozan

PMID: 24046778 PMCID: PMC3767012 DOI: 10.5812/iranjradiol.11729

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Considering the importance and responsibility of reporting mammography and the necessity to notice details with a high degree of precision, double reading mammography has been introduced and recommended.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the performance of double reading of mammograms and its effect on patient outcomes.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: Throughout this cross sectional study, 1284 digitized mammographic views of 642 breasts which belonged to 339 women (of which 303 were bilateral and 36 were unilateral mammographies) were enrolled. Two independent radiologists interpreted these mammograms and BI-RADS categories of both reports were compared. Discordant results were determined and assumed significant if they were in the positive (BI-RADS 0, 4, 5) versus negative (BI-RADS 1, 2, 3) groups and then significant discordant cases were followed up to determine benign versus malignant final diagnosis. The recall rate was calculated for each reader. Inter-observer agreement in breast density was determined by Kappa test.

RESULTS: Readers had consensus on BI-RADS categories in 459 breasts (71%), but diverse categories were used for 183 breasts (29%), including 132 significant and 51 non-significant discrepancies. According to weighted Kappa test, agreement between two readers in positive or negative reports was 0.78 (95% CI=0.73-0.83) and in parenchymal density, it was 0.73 (95% CI=0.7-0.77). Most of the discrepancies were between category zero versus categories 1 and 2 (63.4%). The recall rate was 36% for the first and 44% for the second reader. Among 132 significant discordant results, one case had the final diagnosis of malignancy and the others had benign or negative diagnosis. There was 0.2% increase in cancer detection rate by double reading.

CONCLUSION: This study shows no significant improvement in the cancer detection rate by double reading; however, a lower recall rate could be a more helpful consequence.

Keywords: Double Reading; Mammography; Recall Rate

References

1. Clin Radiol. 1994 Apr;49(4):248-51 - PubMed
2. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1999 Apr;54(3):261-7 - PubMed
3. Ann Acad Med Singap. 2003 Jul;32(4):438-41 - PubMed
4. Breast. 2006 Aug;15(4):528-32 - PubMed
5. Radiology. 2007 Jun;243(3):681-9 - PubMed
6. Radiology. 1994 Apr;191(1):241-4 - PubMed
7. Radiol Clin North Am. 2007 Sep;45(5):751-63, v - PubMed
8. Acad Radiol. 1996 Nov;3(11):891-7 - PubMed
9. Breast. 2007 Dec;16(6):568-76 - PubMed
10. Radiol Med. 2000 Jul-Aug;100(1-2):21-3 - PubMed
11. J Med Screen. 1998;5(4):202-6 - PubMed
12. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000 Jun;174(6):1769-77 - PubMed
13. Breast J. 2008 Nov-Dec;14(6):605-6 - PubMed
14. Radiology. 2009 Dec;253(3):652-60 - PubMed
15. Breast. 2005 Aug;14(4):269-75 - PubMed
16. Ann Oncol. 2008 Apr;19(4):614-22 - PubMed
17. Radiol Clin North Am. 2000 Jul;38(4):719-24 - PubMed
18. J Med Screen. 2005;12(3):125-7 - PubMed
19. Breast. 2001 Dec;10(6):455-63 - PubMed
20. Ann Oncol. 2011 Jan;22(1):93-97 - PubMed
21. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007 Aug 1;99(15):1162-70 - PubMed
22. Radiol Med. 2011 Jun;116(4):575-83 - PubMed
23. Br J Radiol. 1995 Sep;68(813):958-62 - PubMed
24. J Med Screen. 1995;2(2):99-101 - PubMed
25. Clin Radiol. 2005 Nov;60(11):1182-7 - PubMed
26. J Med Screen. 2005;12(2):103-6 - PubMed

Publication Types

• Journal Article