المؤلفون: Rob M. G. van Bommel, Roy Weber, Adri C. Voogd, Joost Nederend, Marieke W. J. Louwman, Dick Venderink, Luc J. A. Strobbe, Matthieu J. C. Rutten, Menno L. Plaisier, Paul N. Lohle, Marianne J. H. Hooijen, Vivianne C.G. Tjan-Heijnen, Lucien E. M. Duijm

المصدر: BMC Cancer, Vol 17, Iss 1, Pp 1-7 (2017)

مصطلحات موضوعية: Breast cancer, Mass screening, Mammography, Referral and consultation, Early detection of cancer, Neoplasms. Tumors. Oncology. Including cancer and carcinogens, RC254-282

الوصف: Abstract Background To determine the proportion of “true” interval cancers and tumor characteristics of interval breast cancers prior to, during and after the transition from screen-film mammography screening (SFM) to full-field digital mammography screening (FFDM). Methods We included all women with interval cancers detected between January 2006 and January 2014. Breast imaging reports, biopsy results and breast surgery reports of all women recalled at screening mammography and of all women with interval breast cancers were collected. Two experienced screening radiologists reviewed the diagnostic mammograms, on which the interval cancers were diagnosed, as well as the prior screening mammograms and determined whether or not the interval cancer had been missed on the most recent screening mammogram. If not missed, the cancer was considered an occult (“true”) interval cancer. Results A total of 442 interval cancers had been diagnosed, of which 144 at SFM with a prior SFM (SFM-SFM), 159 at FFDM with a prior SFM (FFDM-SFM) and 139 at FFDM with a prior FFDM (FFDM-FFDM). The transition from SFM to FFDM screening resulted in the diagnosis of more occult (“true”) interval cancers at FFDM-SFM than at SFM-SFM (65.4% (104/159) versus 49.3% (71/144), P

وصف الملف: electronic resource

العلاقة: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12885-017-3294-5Test; https://doaj.org/toc/1471-2407Test

الوصول الحر: https://doaj.org/article/3997255a6c51455fb91675b8ac065d3dTest

المؤلفون: Adri C. Voogd, Luc J. A. Strobbe, Rob M. G. van Bommel, Dick Venderink, Marieke W. Louwman, Lucien E. M. Duijm

المساهمون: RS: GROW - R3 - Innovative Cancer Diagnostics & Therapy, RS: CAPHRI - R5 - Optimising Patient Care, Epidemiologie, MUMC+: MA Medische Oncologie (9)

المصدر: European Radiology, 27(2), 553-561. Springer, Cham

مصطلحات موضوعية: medicine.medical_specialty, SURGERY, IMPACT, NETHERLANDS, Breast Neoplasms, 030218 nuclear medicine & medical imaging, 03 medical and health sciences, 0302 clinical medicine, Breast cancer, STAGE, medicine, RE-ATTENDANCE, PROGRAM, Mammography, Humans, Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and imaging, MISSED INTERVAL, Stage (cooking), Lymph node, Mass screening, Aged, Retrospective Studies, medicine.diagnostic_test, business.industry, Cancer, Interventional radiology, Referral and consultation, General Medicine, Middle Aged, PERFORMANCE, medicine.disease, Radiographic Image Enhancement, INTERVAL BREAST CANCERS, medicine.anatomical_structure, 030220 oncology & carcinogenesis, Early detection of cancer, SURVIVAL, Female, Radiology, Abnormality, business

الوصف: The aim of this study was to retrospectively determine screening outcome in women recalled twice for the same mammographic lesion before, during, and after transition from screen-film (SFM) to full-field digital screening mammography (FFDM).We included women with a repeated recall for the same mammographic abnormality (37 at subsequent SFM-screening, obtained between January 2000-April 2010; respectively 54 and 65 women with a prior SFM-screen or FFDM-screen followed by subsequent FFDM-screening, obtained between May 2009-July 2013).At SFM-screening, repeated recalls for the same lesion comprised 1.2 % of recalls (37/3217), including 13 malignancies (positive predictive value (PPV), 35.1 %). During the SFM to FFDM transition (SFM-screen followed by FFDM-screen), FFDM recalls comprised more repeated recalls for the same lesion (2.2 %, P = 0.002), with a lower PPV (14.8 %, P = 0.02). This proportion increased to 2.8 % after transition to FFDM (i.e., two successive FFDM-screens), with 16 malignancies (PPV, 24.6 %). Invasive cancers at repeated recall were smaller than interval cancers (T1a-c, 79.4 versus 46.8 %, P = 0.001), with less lymph node involvement (20.6 versus 46.5 %, P = 0.007).More women are repeatedly recalled for the same mammographic abnormality during and after the transition from SFM to FFDM-screening, with comparable cancer risks before and after the transition. These cancers show better prognostic characteristics than interval cancers.aEuro cent FFDM-screening increases the number of repeated recalls for the same mammographic abnormality.aEuro cent The PPV of these recalls is comparable before and after transition to FFDM-screening.aEuro cent Cancers diagnosed after a repeated recall are smaller than interval cancers.aEuro cent These cancers also show less lymph node involvement than interval cancers.

الوصول الحر: https://explore.openaire.eu/search/publication?articleId=doi_dedup___::2a4a67f52ee728c48001e7bdff747835Test
https://cris.maastrichtuniversity.nl/en/publications/9f345ba9-ef3a-4db4-9912-53072a0d4d55Test

المؤلفون: Mireille J. M. Broeders, Adri C. Voogd, Anton F.J. de Haan, Gerard J. den Heeten, Lucien E. M. Duijm, Elisabeth G. Klompenhouwer, Carla Wauters, Luc J. A. Strobbe

المساهمون: CCA -Cancer Center Amsterdam, APH - Amsterdam Public Health, Biomedical Engineering and Physics, Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Epidemiologie, RS: CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, RS: CAPHRI - R5 - Optimising Patient Care, RS: GROW - Oncology, RS: GROW - R3 - Innovative Cancer Diagnostics & Therapy

المصدر: European journal of cancer (Oxford, England, 51(3), 391-399. Elsevier Limited
European Journal of Cancer, 51, 3, pp. 391-9
European Journal of Cancer, 51(3), 391-399. ELSEVIER SCI LTD
European Journal of Cancer, 51, 391-9

مصطلحات موضوعية: Positive predictive value, TOMOSYNTHESIS, Cancer Research, medicine.medical_specialty, Referral, IMPACT, Breast Neoplasms, Cancer detection, Sensitivity and Specificity, Breast cancer, Sensitivity, Double-Blind Method, Internal medicine, BREAST-CANCER MORTALITY, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, medicine, Humans, Mass Screening, False Positive Reactions, RATES, Overdiagnosis, Referral and Consultation, Early Detection of Cancer, Netherlands, Screening mammography, Referral rate, Observer Variation, FALSE-POSITIVE MAMMOGRAMS, Gynecology, OVERDIAGNOSIS, Screen detected, business.industry, Other Research Radboud Institute for Health Sciences [Radboudumc 0], COST, Double reading, Middle Aged, medicine.disease, Women's cancers Radboud Institute for Health Sciences [Radboudumc 17], Population based study, Oncology, Female, business, Mammography

الوصف: Purpose: To prospectively determine the screening mammography outcome at blinded and non-blinded double reading in a;biennial population based screening programme in the south of the Netherlands. Methods: We included a consecutive series of 87,487 digital screening mammograms, obtained between July 2009 and July 2011. Screening mammograms were double read in either a blinded (2nd reader was not informed about the 1st reader's decision) or non-blinded fashion (2nd reader was informed about the 1st reader's decision). This reading strategy was alternated on a monthly basis. Women with discrepant readings between the two radiologists were always referred for further analysis. During 2 years follow-up, we collected the radiology reports, surgical correspondence and pathology reports of all referred women and interval breast cancers. Results: Respectively 44,491 and 42,996 screens had been read either in a blinded or non-blinded fashion. Referral rate (3.3% versus 2.8%, p

الوصول الحر: https://explore.openaire.eu/search/publication?articleId=doi_dedup___::5ce25f017cec591fc7b9bcbc5f61cd92Test
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2014.12.008Test

المؤلفون: Matthieu J. C. M. Rutten, Dick Venderink, Luc J. A. Strobbe, Vivianne C. G. Tjan-Heijnen, Paul N.M. Lohle, Marianne J. H. Hooijen, Menno L. Plaisier, Joost Nederend, Lucien E. M. Duijm, Adri C. Voogd, Rob M. G. van Bommel, Roy J. P. Weber, Marieke W. J. Louwman

المساهمون: RS: GROW - R3 - Innovative Cancer Diagnostics & Therapy, RS: CAPHRI - R5 - Optimising Patient Care, Epidemiologie, MUMC+: MA Medische Oncologie (9), Interne Geneeskunde

المصدر: BMC Cancer
BMC Cancer, 17:315. BioMed Central Ltd
BMC Cancer, Vol 17, Iss 1, Pp 1-7 (2017)

مصطلحات موضوعية: Oncology, Cancer Research, medicine.medical_specialty, Digital mammography, Breast imaging, IMPACT, Breast surgery, medicine.medical_treatment, Biopsy, NETHERLANDS, Breast Neoplasms, lcsh:RC254-282, 030218 nuclear medicine & medical imaging, 03 medical and health sciences, 0302 clinical medicine, Breast cancer, Internal medicine, Genetics, medicine, PROGRAM, Mammography, Humans, X-Ray Intensifying Screens, Mass screening, Aged, medicine.diagnostic_test, business.industry, Cancer, Referral and consultation, Middle Aged, PERFORMANCE, medicine.disease, lcsh:Neoplasms. Tumors. Oncology. Including cancer and carcinogens, 030220 oncology & carcinogenesis, Early detection of cancer, Female, Radiology, business, Research Article

الوصف: Background: To determine the proportion of "true" interval cancers and tumor characteristics of interval breast cancers prior to, during and after the transition from screen-film mammography screening (SFM) to full-field digital mammography screening (FFDM).Methods: We included all women with interval cancers detected between January 2006 and January 2014. Breast imaging reports, biopsy results and breast surgery reports of all women recalled at screening mammography and of all women with interval breast cancers were collected. Two experienced screening radiologists reviewed the diagnostic mammograms, on which the interval cancers were diagnosed, as well as the prior screening mammograms and determined whether or not the interval cancer had been missed on the most recent screening mammogram. If not missed, the cancer was considered an occult ("true") interval cancer.Results: A total of 442 interval cancers had been diagnosed, of which 144 at SFM with a prior SFM (SFM-SFM), 159 at FFDM with a prior SFM (FFDM-SFM) and 139 at FFDM with a prior FFDM (FFDM-FFDM). The transition from SFM to FFDM screening resulted in the diagnosis of more occult ("true") interval cancers at FFDM-SFM than at SFM-SFM (65.4% (104/159) versus 49.3% (71/144), P Conclusions: An increase in the proportion of occult interval cancers is observed during the transition from SFM to FFDM screening mammography. However, this increase seems temporary and is no longer detectable after the second round of digital screening. Tumor characteristics and type of surgery are comparable for interval cancers detected prior to, during and after the transition from SFM to FFDM screening mammography, except of a lower proportion of invasive ductal cancers after the transition.

الوصول الحر: https://explore.openaire.eu/search/publication?articleId=doi_dedup___::cb3234ae82f6467d48488473c61dd1fdTest
https://cris.maastrichtuniversity.nl/en/publications/156670e1-2d03-4c4f-bbaa-c681fa892143Test

المؤلفون: M.J.M. Broeders, Joost Nederend, G. J. den Heeten, Frits H. Jansen, Elisabeth G. Klompenhouwer, Lucien E. M. Duijm, Adri C. Voogd

المساهمون: Epidemiologie, RS: CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Interne Geneeskunde, RS: GROW - Oncology, RS: CAPHRI - Clinical epidemiology, RS: GROW - R1 - Prevention, RS: GROW - R3 - Innovative Cancer Diagnostics & Therapy, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health, Biomedical Engineering and Physics, Radiology and Nuclear Medicine

المصدر: European Radiology, 24(5), 1097-1104. Springer, Cham
European Radiology, 24, 1097-104
European radiology, 24(5), 1097-1104. Springer Verlag
European Radiology, 24, 5, pp. 1097-104

مصطلحات موضوعية: medicine.medical_specialty, COMPUTER-AIDED DETECTION, Referral, Breast imaging, BI-RADS, NETHERLANDS, Population, UNITED-STATES, Film reading variability, Sensitivity, Internal medicine, medicine, PROGRAM, Humans, Mammography, BREAST-CANCER, Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and imaging, RATES, education, Referral and Consultation, Early Detection of Cancer, Mass screening, Aged, Observer Variation, Gynecology, education.field_of_study, medicine.diagnostic_test, business.industry, Carcinoma, Double reading, Interventional radiology, General Medicine, Middle Aged, RECALL RATE, Women's cancers Radboud Institute for Health Sciences [Radboudumc 17], Population based study, VARIABILITY, INTERPRETIVE PERFORMANCE CRITERIA, Female, Radiology, Breast neoplasms, business, Follow-Up Studies

الوصف: Substantial inter-observer variability in screening mammography interpretation has been reported at single reading. However, screening results of pairs of screening radiologists have not yet been published. We determined variations in screening performances among pairs of screening radiologists at non-blinded double reading. We included pairs of screening radiologists with at least 7,500 screening examinations per pair, obtained between 1997 and 2011. During 2-year follow-up, breast imaging reports, surgical reports and pathology results were collected of all referred women and interval cancers. Referral rate, cancer detection rate, positive predictive value and sensitivity were calculated for each pair. A total of 310,906 screening mammograms, read by 26 pairs of screening radiologists, were included for analysis. The referral rate ranged from 1.0 % (95 % CI 0.8 %–1.2 %) to 1.5 % (95 % CI 1.3 %–1.8 %), the cancer detection rate from 4.0 (95 % CI 2.8–5.2) to 6.3 (95 % CI 4.5–8.0) per 1,000 screens. The programme sensitivity and positive predictive value of referral ranged from 55.1 % (95 % CI 45.1 %–65.1 %) to 81.5 % (95 % CI 73.4 %–89.6 %) and from 28.7 % (95 % CI 20.8 %–36.6 %) to 49.5 % (95 % CI 39.7 %–59.3 %), respectively. We found significant variations in screening outcomes among pairs of screening radiologists at non-blinded double reading. This stresses the importance of monitoring screening results on a local scale. • Substantial inter-observer variability in screening mammography interpretation is known at single reading • Population-based study showed significant variations in outcomes among pairs of screening radiologists • Local monitoring and regular feedback are important to optimise screening outcome

الوصول الحر: https://explore.openaire.eu/search/publication?articleId=doi_dedup___::976c68d075ccdbeb5d9cd5e54e2b9eb7Test
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3102-4Test

المؤلفون: Lucien E. M. Duijm, Adri C. Voogd, Marieke W. J. Louwman, Frits H. Jansen, Rudi M. H. Roumen, Wikke Setz-Pels

المساهمون: Epidemiologie, RS: CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, RS: GROW - School for Oncology and Reproduction

المصدر: European Radiology, 22(12), 2624-2632. Springer, Cham

مصطلحات موضوعية: Risk, medicine.medical_specialty, Time Factors, genetic structures, Referral, Biopsy, Breast Neoplasms, Cancer risk, Breast cancer, Predictive Value of Tests, medicine, Mammography, Humans, Mass Screening, Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and imaging, False positive, Referral and Consultation, Early Detection of Cancer, Aged, Netherlands, Screening mammography, Gynecology, Chi-Square Distribution, medicine.diagnostic_test, business.industry, Obstetrics, General Medicine, Middle Aged, medicine.disease, Predictive value of tests, Female, Radiology, business, Chi-squared distribution

الوصف: Objectives To determine the characteristics and screening outcome of women referred twice at screening mammography. Methods We included 424,703 consecutive screening mammograms and collected imaging, biopsy and surgery reports of women with screen-detected breast cancer. Review of screening mammograms was performed to determine whether or not an initial and second referral comprised the same lesion. Results The overall positive predictive value of referral for cancer was 38.6% (95% CI 37.3-39.8%). Of 147 (2.6%) women referred twice, 86 had been referred for a different lesion at second referral and 32 of these proved malignant (37.2%, 95% CI 27.0-47.4%). Sixty-one women had been referred twice for the same lesion, of which 22 proved malignant (36.1%, 95% CI 24.1-48.0%). Characteristics of these women were comparable to women with cancer diagnosed after first referral. Compared with women without cancer at second referral for the same lesion, women with cancer more frequently showed suspicious densities at screening mammography (86.4% vs 53.8%, P = 0.02) and work-up at first referral had less frequently included biopsy (22.7% vs 61.5%, P = 0.004). Conclusions Cancer risk in women referred twice for the same lesion is similar to that observed in women referred once, or referred for a second time but for a different lesion. Key Points . Cancer risk was 36% for lesions referred twice at screening mammography . The cancer risk was similar for lesions referred only once at screening . Densities at first referral were associated with increased cancer risk at second referral . No biopsy at first referral was associated with increased cancer risk at second referral . Patient and tumour characteristics were similar for women with and without diagnostic delay.

الوصول الحر: https://explore.openaire.eu/search/publication?articleId=doi_dedup___::010d62628f74cb9a608d4faf83a465e8Test
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-012-2523-1Test

المؤلفون: Lucien E. M. Duijm, Vivian van Breest Smallenburg, Frits H. Jansen, Johanna H. Groenewoud, Marieke W. J. Louwman, Adri C. Voogd, Wikke Setz-Pels, Alexander V. Tielbeek

المساهمون: Epidemiologie, RS: CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, RS: GROW - School for Oncology and Reproduction

المصدر: International Journal of Cancer, 131(6), 1360-1366. Wiley

مصطلحات موضوعية: Cancer Research, medicine.medical_specialty, Delayed Diagnosis, Time Factors, mammography, Breast Neoplasms, Breast cancer screening, Breast cancer, breast cancer, Malpractice, medicine, Humans, Mammography, Breast screening, Referral and Consultation, Early Detection of Cancer, Netherlands, Gynecology, Screen detected, medicine.diagnostic_test, Screening mammography, business.industry, Obstetrics, screening, claims, Cancer, malpractice, medicine.disease, Oncology, Female, business

الوصف: Although malpractice lawsuits are frequently related to a delayed breast cancer diagnosis in symptomatic patients, information on claims at European screening mammography programs is lacking. We determined the type and frequency of malpractice claims at a Dutch breast cancer screening region. We included all 85,274 women (351,009 screens) who underwent biennial screening mammography at a southern breast screening region in The Netherlands between 1997 and 2009. Two screening radiologists reviewed the screening mammograms of all screen detected cancers and interval cancers and determined whether the cancer had been missed at the previous screen or at the latest screen, respectively. We analyzed all correspondence between the screening organization, clinicians and screened women, and collected complaints and claims until September 2011. At review, 20.9% (308/1,475) of screen detected cancers and 24.3% (163/670) of interval cancers were considered to be missed at a previous screen. A total of 19 women (of which 2, 6 and 11 women had been screened between 1997 and 2001 (102,439 screens), 2001 and 2005 (114,740 screens) and 2005 and 2009 (133,830 screens), respectively) had contacted the screening organization for additional information about their screen detected cancer or interval cancer, but filed no claim. Three other women directly initiated an insurance claim for financial compensation of their interval cancer without previously having contacted the screening organization. We conclude that screening-related claims were rarely encountered, although many screen detected cancers and interval cancers had been missed at a previous screen. A small but increasing proportion of women sought additional information about their breast cancer from the screening organization.

الوصول الحر: https://explore.openaire.eu/search/publication?articleId=doi_dedup___::e03f7a3b9998acf3832edd1accc91cb4Test
https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.27398Test

المؤلفون: Johanna H. Groenewoud, J.W.W. Coebergh, Lucien E. M. Duijm, Jacques Fracheboud, L.V. van de Poll-Franse, Marieke W. Louwman

المساهمون: Public Health, Epidemiology

المصدر: British Journal of Cancer, 100(6), 901-907. Nature Publishing Group
British Journal of Cancer

مصطلحات موضوعية: Breast biopsy, Cancer Research, medicine.medical_specialty, Breast imaging, mammography, Breast surgery, medicine.medical_treatment, Radiography, radiographer, education, Breast cancer, SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being, health services administration, Clinical Studies, Cancer screening, Humans, Mass Screening, Medicine, Mammography, Prospective Studies, Referral and Consultation, Mass screening, Aged, Observer Variation, inter-observer, medicine.diagnostic_test, business.industry, screening, Middle Aged, medicine.disease, Oncology, Female, Radiology, radiologist, business

الوصف: We prospectively determined the variability in radiologists' interpretation of screening mammograms and assessed the influence of type and number of readers on screening outcome. Twenty-one screening mammography radiographers and eight screening radiologists participated. A total of 106 093 screening mammograms were double-read by two radiographers and, in turn, by two radiologists. Initially, radiologists were blinded to the referral opinion of the radiographers. A woman was referred if she was considered positive at radiologist double-reading with consensus interpretation or referred after radiologist review of positive cases at radiographer double-reading. During 2-year follow-up, clinical data, breast imaging reports, biopsy results and breast surgery reports were collected of all women with a positive screening result from any reader. Single radiologist reading (I) resulted in a mean cancer detection rate of 4.64 per 1000 screens (95% confidence intervals (CI) = 4.23-5.05) with individual variations from 3.44 (95% CI = 2.30-4.58) to 5.04 (95% CI = 3.81-6.27), and a sensitivity of 63.9% (95% CI = 60.5-67.3), ranging from 51.5% (95% CI = 39.6-63.3) to 75.0% (95% CI = 65.3-84.7). Sensitivity at non-blinded, radiologist double-reading (II), radiologist double-reading followed by radiologist review of positive cases at radiographer double-reading (III), triple reading by one radiologist and two radiographers with referral of all positive readings (IV) and quadruple reading by two radiologists and two radiographers with referral of all positive readings (V) were as follows: 68.6% (95% CI = 65.3-71.9) (II); 73.2% (95% CI = 70.1-76.4) (III); 75.2% (95% CI = 72.1-78.2) (IV), and 76.9% (95% CI = 73.9-79.9) (V). We conclude that screener performance significantly varied at single-reading. Double-reading increased sensitivity by a relative 7.3%. When there is a shortage of screening radiologists, triple reading by one radiologist and two radiographers may replace radiologist double-reading.

الوصول الحر: https://explore.openaire.eu/search/publication?articleId=doi_dedup___::18a2514e2846fe24c64bea9cba02af61Test
https://hdl.handle.net/1765/18033Test

المؤلفون: Lucien E. M. Duijm, Johanna H. Groenewoud, Harry J. de Koning, B. Martin van Ineveld, Jacques Fracheboud, Rudi M. H. Roumen

المساهمون: Public Health

المصدر: European Journal of Cancer, 44(9), 1223-1228. Elsevier Ltd.

مصطلحات موضوعية: Cancer Research, medicine.medical_specialty, Consensus, Referral, health care facilities, manpower, and services, education, Breast Neoplasms, Screening programme, SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being, health services administration, Medicine, Mammography, Humans, Mass Screening, Diagnostic Errors, Referral and Consultation, Aged, Netherlands, Observer Variation, Chi-Square Distribution, medicine.diagnostic_test, business.industry, Screening mammography, Medical screening, Carcinoma, Ductal, Breast, Double reading, Middle Aged, Prognosis, surgical procedures, operative, Oncology, Costs and Cost Analysis, Female, Radiology, business, Follow-Up Studies

الوصف: Purpose: To determine the effect of introducing radiographer double reading, in addition to standard radiologist double reading, on screening mammography outcome. Methods: In period A, 66,225 mammograms were read by two screening radiologists. In period B, 78,325 mammograms were read by two radiographers in addition and radiologists were blinded to the referral opinion of the radiographers. Mammograms, for which only radiographers had suggested referral, (i.e. cases that would only be referred by technologists) were re-evaluated by the screening radiologists. Women were referred if at least one radiologist considered this necessary, and diagnostic costs of these additional referrals were estimated. Results: In period A, 322 cancers were diagnosed after referral of 678 women. During period B, radiologists initially referred 1122 patients and 411 cancers were detected. Radiologists' referral rate was higher in period B than in period A (1.43% versus 1.02%, p < 0.001), as well as the cancer detection rate per 1000 women screened (CDR) (5.25 versus 4.86, p = 0.3). The positive predictive value of referral (PPV) was 36.6% versus 47.5% (p < 0.001). In period B, radiologist review of 544 additional positive radiographer readings led to 102 extra referrals, with 29 additional cancers detected, resulting in an overall referral rate of 1.56% (compared to period A, p < 0.001), an overall CDR of 5.62 (p = 0.048) and an overall PPV of 35.9% (p < 0.001). Workup expenses of the 102 additional referrals were Sic60,274. Conclusion: Additional radiographer double reading detected cancers that would have been missed by radiologists. Mean expenses for diagnostic confirmation of these extra cancers was Sic2078 per cancer. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

الوصول الحر: https://explore.openaire.eu/search/publication?articleId=doi_dedup___::9b4b7bb71deeefac2f43266391e2e527Test
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2008.03.003Test

المؤلفون: Lucien E. M. Duijm, Vivianne C. G. Tjan-Heijnen, Roy J. P. Weber, G. J. den Heeten, Adri C. Voogd, Elisabeth G. Klompenhouwer, Luc J. A. Strobbe, Mireille J. M. Broeders

المساهمون: Epidemiologie, Interne Geneeskunde, RS: CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, RS: CAPHRI - R5 - Optimising Patient Care, RS: GROW - Oncology, RS: GROW - R3 - Innovative Cancer Diagnostics & Therapy, CCA -Cancer Center Amsterdam, APH - Amsterdam Public Health, Biomedical Engineering and Physics, Radiology and Nuclear Medicine

المصدر: Breast, 24(5), 601-607. Churchill Livingstone
Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland), 24(5), 601-607. Churchill Livingstone

مصطلحات موضوعية: medicine.medical_specialty, Breast Neoplasms, BI-RADS, Cancer detection, Sensitivity and Specificity, Predictive Value of Tests, Humans, Medicine, Mammography, False Positive Reactions, Single-Blind Method, Referral and Consultation, Mass screening, Aged, Retrospective Studies, Observer Variation, medicine.diagnostic_test, Negotiating, business.industry, Double reading, Retrospective cohort study, General Medicine, Middle Aged, Surgery, Predictive value of tests, Female, business, Nuclear medicine

الوصف: Purpose: To evaluate the characteristics of low suspicion lesions (BI-RADS 0) at blinded and non-blinded double reading of screening mammograms and to determine the potential effect of arbitration of discrepant BI-RADS 0 recalls by a third reader on screening outcome. Methods: We included a series of 84,927 consecutive digital screening mammograms, double read in a blinded (43,184 screens) or non-blinded (41,743 screens) fashion, between July 2009 and July 2011. Discrepant readings were routinely recalled for further evaluation. During 2 years of follow-up, radiology, surgical and pathology reports were collected of all recalled women. Arbitration of discrepant BI-RADS 0 recalls (only one radiologist assigning a BI-RADS 0 score) was retrospectively performed by a third screening radiologist. Results: At blinded and non-blinded double reading, 32.0% and 32.5% of recalls were assigned BI-RADS 0 with a positive predictive value (PPV) of 7.2% and 6.8%, respectively. Compared to non-blinded double reading, BI-RADS 0 recalls at blinded double reading showed a higher discrepancy rate (9.0 versus 4.3 per 1000 screens, p

الوصول الحر: https://explore.openaire.eu/search/publication?articleId=doi_dedup___::095cb30e6e2fb53ee546de377188c04dTest
https://cris.maastrichtuniversity.nl/en/publications/a80f490f-4149-4816-a568-341f884f8ddeTest