Published February 2012 | Version v1
Journal article

An observational study to evaluate the performance of units using two radiographers to read screening mammograms

  • 1. Cancer Screening Evaluation Unit, Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, Surrey (United Kingdom)
  • 2. NHS Cancer Screening Programmes, Sheffield (United Kingdom)

Description

Aim: To examine the performance of screening units in which a proportion of mammograms were double read using "non-discordant radiographer only (double) reading" (NDROR). Materials and methods: NDROR was used by seven pilot units between 2006 and 2009, and six further units in 2009 only. There were 51 comparison units. Screening performance outcome measures were calculated, and logistic regression was used to compare performance between the pilot and comparison units. Results: Phase 1 pilot units read between on average 15 and 48% of mammograms per year using NDROR between 2006 and 2009 (median, 33%) and in 2009, phase 2 pilot units used NDROR to read between 4 and 77% of mammograms (median, 34%). The results showed an increase in recall rates in the phase 1 pilot units relative to the comparison units at both prevalent and incident screens (adjusted OR 1.09, 95% CI 1.05, 1.14; and adjusted OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.07, 1.14, respectively). There were also increases in the phase 2 pilot units relative to the comparison units; adjusted OR 1.08 (95% 1.00, 1.17) at prevalent screens, and adjusted OR 1.07 (95% CI 1.02, 1.14) at incident screens. There was no evidence to suggest a difference in cancer-detection rates between the pilot units and the comparison units. Conclusions: Evidence from the present study suggests that recall rates may increase as a result of units using radiographers to double read a proportion of their mammograms. However, there is little evidence to suggest that NDROR, as practiced by the pilot units in the present study, is likely to have major impacts on performance in the UK National Health Service Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP), particularly if it is fully supported and closely monitored (particularly recall rates).

Availability note (English)

Available from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2011.06.015

Additional details

Identifiers

DOI
10.1016/j.crad.2011.06.015;
PII
S0009-9260(11)00315-1;

Publishing Information

Journal Title
Clinical Radiology
Journal Volume
67
Journal Issue
2
Journal Page Range
p. 114-121
ISSN
0009-9260
CODEN
CLRAAG

INIS

Country of Publication
United Kingdom
Country of Input or Organization
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
INIS RN
43073141
Subject category
S62: RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE;
Descriptors DEI
BIOMEDICAL RADIOGRAPHY; COMPARATIVE EVALUATIONS; MAMMARY GLANDS; NEOPLASMS; PERFORMANCE; RADIOLOGICAL PERSONNEL; SCREENING
Descriptors DEC
BODY; DIAGNOSTIC TECHNIQUES; DISEASES; EVALUATION; GLANDS; MEDICAL PERSONNEL; MEDICINE; NUCLEAR MEDICINE; ORGANS; PERSONNEL; RADIOLOGY

Optional Information

Copyright
Copyright (c) 2011 Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, All rights reserved.