Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29943181›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2019

Characteristics of screen-detected cancers following concordant or discordant recalls at blinded double reading in biennial digital screening mammography.

Angela M P Coolen, Joost R C Lameijer, Adri C Voogd, Marieke W J Louwman, Luc J Strobbe, Vivianne C G Tjan-Heijnen, Lucien E M Duijm

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Angela M P CoolenDepartment of Radiology, Elisabeth-Tweesteden Hospital (ETZ), 90151, 5000 LC, Tilburg, The Netherlands. a.coolen88@hotmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6502-9603
Joost R C LameijerDepartment of Radiology, Catharina Hospital, Michelangelolaan 2, 5623 EJ, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Adri C VoogdDepartment of Epidemiology, Maastricht University, GROW, P Debyelaan 1, 6229 HA, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Marieke W J LouwmanDepartment of Research, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization (IKNL), 19079, 3501 DB, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Luc J StrobbeDepartment of Surgery, Canisius-Wilhelmina Hospital, PO Box 9015, 6500 GS, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Vivianne C G Tjan-HeijnenDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, GROW, Maastricht University Medical Centre, P Debyelaan 1, 6229 HA, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Lucien E M DuijmDepartment of Radiology, Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital, Weg door Jonkerbos 100, 6532 SZ, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo analyse which mammographic and tumour characteristics led to concordant versus discordant recalls at blinded double reading to further optimise our breast cancer screening programme.

methodsWe included a consecutive series of 99,013 screening mammograms obtained between July 2013 and January 2015. All mammograms were double read in a blinded fashion. Discordant readings were routinely recalled without consensus or arbitration. During the 2-year follow-up, relevant data of the recalled women were collected. We compared mammographic characteristics, screening outcome and tumour characteristics between concordant and discordant recalls.

resultsThere were 2,543 concordant recalls (71.4%) and 997 discordant recalls (28.0%). The positive predictive value of a concordant recall was significantly higher (23.5% vs. 10.0%, p < 0.001). The proportion of BI-RADS 0 was significantly higher in the discordant recall group (75.7% vs. 56.3%, p < 0.001). Discordant recalls were more often an asymmetry or architectural distortion (21.8% vs. 13.2% and 9.3% vs. 6.5%, respectively, p < 0.001). There were no differences in the distribution of DCIS and invasive cancers and tumour characteristics were comparable for the two groups, except for a more favourable tumour grade in the discordant recall group (54.7% vs. 39.9% grade I tumours, p = 0.022).

conclusionsScreen-detected cancers detected by a discordant reading show a more favourable tumour grade than cancers diagnosed after a concordant recall. The higher proportion of asymmetries and architectural distortions in this group provide a possible target for improving screening programmes by additional training of screening radiologists and the implementation of digital breast tomosynthesis. KEY POINTS: • With blinded double reading of screening mammograms, screen-detected cancers detected by a discordant reading show a more favourable tumour grade than cancers diagnosed after a concordant recall. • The proportions of asymmetries and architectural distortions are higher in case of a discordant reading. • Possible improvement strategies could target additional training of screening radiologists and the implementation of digital breast tomosynthesis in breast cancer screening programmes.

Indexed as

AgedBreast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMammographyMiddle AgedProspective StudiesBreast neoplasmsEarly detection of cancerFollow-up studiesMammographyMass screening

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.