ArticleEuropean radiology2026
Finding the optimal recall rate in breast cancer screening: results from the ROCS study.
Article in European radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesIn breast cancer screening, determining the optimal balance between the number of screen-detected cancer cases and false-positive recalls is essential. This study explored the relationship between these indicators for the Dutch Digital Mammography Screening Program and aimed to determine the optimal recall rate. MATERIALS AND
methodsFrom March to June 2019, 21 screening radiologists provided continuous Probability-of-Malignancy (PoM) scores during their standard reading sessions. Scores ranged from 'no suspicion' (PoM = -100) to 'highest suspicion' (PoM = 100). Follow-up data were obtained in June 2024 and included recall decisions after double reading, outcomes of further assessments (false positive or screen-detected cancer), and interval cancer diagnoses. Recall-detection and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were constructed for each reader and averaged to obtain summary curves, with error bars computed from hierarchical bootstrapping of cases within readers (1000 resamples). The overall screening performance was quantified using the area under the ROC curve (AUC).
resultsThe final dataset comprised 40,829 screening records with 315 cancer cases. The overall recall rate was 2.33%, and the cancer detection rate after double reading was 6.4 per 1000 screens. Radiologist performance was high (AUC = 0.91). Moving the operating point results in either substantially lower cancer detection or relatively little gain.
conclusionThis prospective study identified the trade-off between unconditional recall and detection rates, as well as conditional sensitivity and specificity. We found that Dutch screening radiologists perform at a high level and operate at a point that seems to optimize the false-positive recall and cancer detection rate trade-off. KEY POINTS: Question Breast cancer screening requires a good balance between detection and false-positive rate. However, the interrelationship between these rates, and thus the optimal recall, is unknown. Findings Overall, the Dutch screening radiologists performed with high accuracy, and the current operating point optimizes the trade-off between cancer detection and false-positive recalls. Clinical relevance ROCS provides an efficient method to evaluate performance and determine target values based on data from screening practice. This method applies to various screening programs. Screening evaluation is essential for achieving and maintaining a positive benefit-to-harm ratio for participants.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.