Comparison of the diagnostic workup of women referred at non-blinded or blinded double reading in a population-based screening mammography programme in the south of the Netherlands
Background: To determine whether referred women experience differences in diagnostic workup at non-blinded or blinded double reading of screening mammograms. Methods: We included a consecutive series of respectively 42.996 and 44.491 screens, double read either in a non-blinded or blinded manner bet...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | British journal of cancer 2015-09, Vol.113 (7), p.1094-1098 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 1098 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 7 |
| container_start_page | 1094 |
| container_title | British journal of cancer |
| container_volume | 113 |
| creator | Weber, Roy J P Klompenhouwer, Elisabeth G Voogd, Adri C Strobbe, Luc J A Broeders, Mireille J M Duijm, Lucien E M |
| description | Background:
To determine whether referred women experience differences in diagnostic workup at non-blinded or blinded double reading of screening mammograms.
Methods:
We included a consecutive series of respectively 42.996 and 44.491 screens, double read either in a non-blinded or blinded manner between 2009 and 2011. This reading strategy was alternated on a monthly basis.
Results:
The overall ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy (CNB) rate and stereotactic CNB (SCNB) rate per 1000 screens were higher at blinded than at non-blinded reading (7.5
vs
6.0,
P
=0.008 and 8.1
vs
6.6,
P
=0.009). Among women with benign workup, these rates were higher at blinded reading (2.6
vs
1.4,
P |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1038/bjc.2015.295 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4651120</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1718330632</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c520t-ef764d353d39bff5844a38675fd18d9303380b60c015242cec6c7ffcc4b2302e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptkktv1DAQxy1ERZfCjTOyxKUHsvgR53FBQqvykKpygbPl2JOsl9gOdkLV78UHxNF2q4K42DOa3_w94xmEXlGypYQ377qD3jJCxZa14gnaUMFZQRtWP0UbQkhdkJaRc_Q8pUN2W9LUz9A5q1hTcl5t0O9dcJOKNgWPQ4_nPWBj1eBDmq3GtyH-WKY1cBsceByhhxjBYDVjH3zRjdab7IaIT6YJSzdCJpWxfsDWY4WnMC2jmu2aoVKGko4Afo075VwYopr2d3iKq-UcrFlrJSks8_5U1g3kM47Km_QCnfVqTPDy_r5A3z9efdt9Lq6_fvqy-3BdaMHIXEBfV6Xhghvedn0vmrJUvKlq0RvamJYTzhvSVUTn32Ml06ArXfe91mXHOGHAL9D7o-60dA6MBj9HNcopWqfinQzKyr8j3u7lEH7JshKUMpIFLu8FYvi5QJqls0nDmLuAsCRJa9pwTirOMvrmH_QQluhzeytVl6IWlGfq7ZHSMaSUx_FQDCVyXQeZ10Gu6yDzOmT89eMGHuDT_DNQHIGUQ36A-OjV_wn-AeHOw-U</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1717457513</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of the diagnostic workup of women referred at non-blinded or blinded double reading in a population-based screening mammography programme in the south of the Netherlands</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Nature</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Weber, Roy J P ; Klompenhouwer, Elisabeth G ; Voogd, Adri C ; Strobbe, Luc J A ; Broeders, Mireille J M ; Duijm, Lucien E M</creator><creatorcontrib>Weber, Roy J P ; Klompenhouwer, Elisabeth G ; Voogd, Adri C ; Strobbe, Luc J A ; Broeders, Mireille J M ; Duijm, Lucien E M</creatorcontrib><description>Background:
To determine whether referred women experience differences in diagnostic workup at non-blinded or blinded double reading of screening mammograms.
Methods:
We included a consecutive series of respectively 42.996 and 44.491 screens, double read either in a non-blinded or blinded manner between 2009 and 2011. This reading strategy was alternated on a monthly basis.
Results:
The overall ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy (CNB) rate and stereotactic CNB (SCNB) rate per 1000 screens were higher at blinded than at non-blinded reading (7.5
vs
6.0,
P
=0.008 and 8.1
vs
6.6,
P
=0.009). Among women with benign workup, these rates were higher at blinded reading (2.6
vs
1.4,
P
<0.001 and 5.9
vs
4.7,
P
=0.013). The benign biopsy rates were higher at blinded double reading (
P
<0.001), whereas the positive predictive value of biopsy did not differ (
P
=0.103).
Conclusions:
Blinded double-reading results in higher overall CNB and SCNB rates than non-blinded double reading, as well as a higher benign biopsy rate.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0007-0920</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1532-1827</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2015.295</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26284336</identifier><identifier>CODEN: BJCAAI</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: Nature Publishing Group UK</publisher><subject>692/699/67/1347 ; 692/699/67/2322 ; 692/699/67/2324 ; 692/700/139 ; Aged ; Biomedical and Life Sciences ; Biomedicine ; Biopsy ; Biopsy, Large-Core Needle - methods ; Breast - pathology ; Breast cancer ; Breast Neoplasms - diagnosis ; Cancer Research ; Double-Blind Method ; Drug Resistance ; Early Detection of Cancer - methods ; Epidemiology ; Female ; Hormone replacement therapy ; Humans ; Mammography ; Mammography - methods ; Medical research ; Medical screening ; Middle Aged ; Molecular Medicine ; Netherlands ; Oncology ; Ultrasonic imaging</subject><ispartof>British journal of cancer, 2015-09, Vol.113 (7), p.1094-1098</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2015</rights><rights>Copyright Nature Publishing Group Sep 29, 2015</rights><rights>Copyright © 2015 Cancer Research UK 2015 Cancer Research UK</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c520t-ef764d353d39bff5844a38675fd18d9303380b60c015242cec6c7ffcc4b2302e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c520t-ef764d353d39bff5844a38675fd18d9303380b60c015242cec6c7ffcc4b2302e3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4651120/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4651120/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,881,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294,53766,53768</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26284336$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Weber, Roy J P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Klompenhouwer, Elisabeth G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Voogd, Adri C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Strobbe, Luc J A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Broeders, Mireille J M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Duijm, Lucien E M</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of the diagnostic workup of women referred at non-blinded or blinded double reading in a population-based screening mammography programme in the south of the Netherlands</title><title>British journal of cancer</title><addtitle>Br J Cancer</addtitle><addtitle>Br J Cancer</addtitle><description>Background:
To determine whether referred women experience differences in diagnostic workup at non-blinded or blinded double reading of screening mammograms.
Methods:
We included a consecutive series of respectively 42.996 and 44.491 screens, double read either in a non-blinded or blinded manner between 2009 and 2011. This reading strategy was alternated on a monthly basis.
Results:
The overall ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy (CNB) rate and stereotactic CNB (SCNB) rate per 1000 screens were higher at blinded than at non-blinded reading (7.5
vs
6.0,
P
=0.008 and 8.1
vs
6.6,
P
=0.009). Among women with benign workup, these rates were higher at blinded reading (2.6
vs
1.4,
P
<0.001 and 5.9
vs
4.7,
P
=0.013). The benign biopsy rates were higher at blinded double reading (
P
<0.001), whereas the positive predictive value of biopsy did not differ (
P
=0.103).
Conclusions:
Blinded double-reading results in higher overall CNB and SCNB rates than non-blinded double reading, as well as a higher benign biopsy rate.</description><subject>692/699/67/1347</subject><subject>692/699/67/2322</subject><subject>692/699/67/2324</subject><subject>692/700/139</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Biomedical and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Biomedicine</subject><subject>Biopsy</subject><subject>Biopsy, Large-Core Needle - methods</subject><subject>Breast - pathology</subject><subject>Breast cancer</subject><subject>Breast Neoplasms - diagnosis</subject><subject>Cancer Research</subject><subject>Double-Blind Method</subject><subject>Drug Resistance</subject><subject>Early Detection of Cancer - methods</subject><subject>Epidemiology</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Hormone replacement therapy</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Mammography</subject><subject>Mammography - methods</subject><subject>Medical research</subject><subject>Medical screening</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Molecular Medicine</subject><subject>Netherlands</subject><subject>Oncology</subject><subject>Ultrasonic imaging</subject><issn>0007-0920</issn><issn>1532-1827</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>C6C</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNptkktv1DAQxy1ERZfCjTOyxKUHsvgR53FBQqvykKpygbPl2JOsl9gOdkLV78UHxNF2q4K42DOa3_w94xmEXlGypYQ377qD3jJCxZa14gnaUMFZQRtWP0UbQkhdkJaRc_Q8pUN2W9LUz9A5q1hTcl5t0O9dcJOKNgWPQ4_nPWBj1eBDmq3GtyH-WKY1cBsceByhhxjBYDVjH3zRjdab7IaIT6YJSzdCJpWxfsDWY4WnMC2jmu2aoVKGko4Afo075VwYopr2d3iKq-UcrFlrJSks8_5U1g3kM47Km_QCnfVqTPDy_r5A3z9efdt9Lq6_fvqy-3BdaMHIXEBfV6Xhghvedn0vmrJUvKlq0RvamJYTzhvSVUTn32Ml06ArXfe91mXHOGHAL9D7o-60dA6MBj9HNcopWqfinQzKyr8j3u7lEH7JshKUMpIFLu8FYvi5QJqls0nDmLuAsCRJa9pwTirOMvrmH_QQluhzeytVl6IWlGfq7ZHSMaSUx_FQDCVyXQeZ10Gu6yDzOmT89eMGHuDT_DNQHIGUQ36A-OjV_wn-AeHOw-U</recordid><startdate>20150929</startdate><enddate>20150929</enddate><creator>Weber, Roy J P</creator><creator>Klompenhouwer, Elisabeth G</creator><creator>Voogd, Adri C</creator><creator>Strobbe, Luc J A</creator><creator>Broeders, Mireille J M</creator><creator>Duijm, Lucien E M</creator><general>Nature Publishing Group UK</general><general>Nature Publishing Group</general><scope>C6C</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7TO</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AN0</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20150929</creationdate><title>Comparison of the diagnostic workup of women referred at non-blinded or blinded double reading in a population-based screening mammography programme in the south of the Netherlands</title><author>Weber, Roy J P ; Klompenhouwer, Elisabeth G ; Voogd, Adri C ; Strobbe, Luc J A ; Broeders, Mireille J M ; Duijm, Lucien E M</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c520t-ef764d353d39bff5844a38675fd18d9303380b60c015242cec6c7ffcc4b2302e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>692/699/67/1347</topic><topic>692/699/67/2322</topic><topic>692/699/67/2324</topic><topic>692/700/139</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Biomedical and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Biomedicine</topic><topic>Biopsy</topic><topic>Biopsy, Large-Core Needle - methods</topic><topic>Breast - pathology</topic><topic>Breast cancer</topic><topic>Breast Neoplasms - diagnosis</topic><topic>Cancer Research</topic><topic>Double-Blind Method</topic><topic>Drug Resistance</topic><topic>Early Detection of Cancer - methods</topic><topic>Epidemiology</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Hormone replacement therapy</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Mammography</topic><topic>Mammography - methods</topic><topic>Medical research</topic><topic>Medical screening</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Molecular Medicine</topic><topic>Netherlands</topic><topic>Oncology</topic><topic>Ultrasonic imaging</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Weber, Roy J P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Klompenhouwer, Elisabeth G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Voogd, Adri C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Strobbe, Luc J A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Broeders, Mireille J M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Duijm, Lucien E M</creatorcontrib><collection>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Oncogenes and Growth Factors Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>British Nursing Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>British journal of cancer</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Weber, Roy J P</au><au>Klompenhouwer, Elisabeth G</au><au>Voogd, Adri C</au><au>Strobbe, Luc J A</au><au>Broeders, Mireille J M</au><au>Duijm, Lucien E M</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of the diagnostic workup of women referred at non-blinded or blinded double reading in a population-based screening mammography programme in the south of the Netherlands</atitle><jtitle>British journal of cancer</jtitle><stitle>Br J Cancer</stitle><addtitle>Br J Cancer</addtitle><date>2015-09-29</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>113</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>1094</spage><epage>1098</epage><pages>1094-1098</pages><issn>0007-0920</issn><eissn>1532-1827</eissn><coden>BJCAAI</coden><abstract>Background:
To determine whether referred women experience differences in diagnostic workup at non-blinded or blinded double reading of screening mammograms.
Methods:
We included a consecutive series of respectively 42.996 and 44.491 screens, double read either in a non-blinded or blinded manner between 2009 and 2011. This reading strategy was alternated on a monthly basis.
Results:
The overall ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy (CNB) rate and stereotactic CNB (SCNB) rate per 1000 screens were higher at blinded than at non-blinded reading (7.5
vs
6.0,
P
=0.008 and 8.1
vs
6.6,
P
=0.009). Among women with benign workup, these rates were higher at blinded reading (2.6
vs
1.4,
P
<0.001 and 5.9
vs
4.7,
P
=0.013). The benign biopsy rates were higher at blinded double reading (
P
<0.001), whereas the positive predictive value of biopsy did not differ (
P
=0.103).
Conclusions:
Blinded double-reading results in higher overall CNB and SCNB rates than non-blinded double reading, as well as a higher benign biopsy rate.</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>Nature Publishing Group UK</pub><pmid>26284336</pmid><doi>10.1038/bjc.2015.295</doi><tpages>5</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0007-0920 |
| ispartof | British journal of cancer, 2015-09, Vol.113 (7), p.1094-1098 |
| issn | 0007-0920 1532-1827 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4651120 |
| source | MEDLINE; Nature; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; PubMed Central; SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings |
| subjects | 692/699/67/1347 692/699/67/2322 692/699/67/2324 692/700/139 Aged Biomedical and Life Sciences Biomedicine Biopsy Biopsy, Large-Core Needle - methods Breast - pathology Breast cancer Breast Neoplasms - diagnosis Cancer Research Double-Blind Method Drug Resistance Early Detection of Cancer - methods Epidemiology Female Hormone replacement therapy Humans Mammography Mammography - methods Medical research Medical screening Middle Aged Molecular Medicine Netherlands Oncology Ultrasonic imaging |
| title | Comparison of the diagnostic workup of women referred at non-blinded or blinded double reading in a population-based screening mammography programme in the south of the Netherlands |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-28T15%3A12%3A26IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20the%20diagnostic%20workup%20of%20women%20referred%20at%20non-blinded%20or%20blinded%20double%20reading%20in%20a%20population-based%20screening%20mammography%20programme%20in%20the%20south%20of%20the%20Netherlands&rft.jtitle=British%20journal%20of%20cancer&rft.au=Weber,%20Roy%20J%20P&rft.date=2015-09-29&rft.volume=113&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=1094&rft.epage=1098&rft.pages=1094-1098&rft.issn=0007-0920&rft.eissn=1532-1827&rft.coden=BJCAAI&rft_id=info:doi/10.1038/bjc.2015.295&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E1718330632%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1717457513&rft_id=info:pmid/26284336&rfr_iscdi=true |