AJR ARRS Membership
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Burnside, E. S.
Right arrow Articles by Sisney, G. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Burnside, E. S.
Right arrow Articles by Sisney, G. A.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
AJR 2005; 185:790-796
© American Roentgen Ray Society


Original Research

The Use of Batch Reading to Improve the Performance of Screening Mammography

Elizabeth S. Burnside1, Jeong Mi Park2, Jason P. Fine3 and Gale A. Sisney1

1 Breast Care Center, University of Wisconsin Medical School, 600 Highland Ave., Rm. G3/101, Madison, WI 53792-1804.
2 The University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Department of Radiology, Iowa City, IA.
3 Department of Statistics and Department of Biostatistics & Medical Informatics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI.

OBJECTIVE. The objective of our study was to prove that batch reading of screening mammograms can reduce recall rates without sacrificing cancer detection.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. We analyzed recall rate, cancer detection, minimal cancer detection, detection of low-stage cancer, and tumor size from consecutive screening mammography examinations from October 2001 to July 2003. The initial 7,984 mammograms were interpreted in the midst of a busy breast imaging practice. Although these studies were not read online, the interpretations were often interrupted for telephone calls, procedures, and diagnostic mammograms. The remaining 1,538 studies were interpreted after the institution of dedicated uninterrupted batch reading.

RESULTS. Recall rates were 20.1% before and 16.2% after the introduction of batch reading (p < 0.001). Cancer detection rates were not significantly different: 5.6 cancers were detected per 1,000 examinations without and 7.2 were detected per 1,000 with batch reading. Prognostic factors for breast cancers diagnosed between these groups also were not significantly different. Of the screening-detected cancers diagnosed before batch reading, minimal cancers comprised 67% and low-stage cancers accounted for 76%. Of the cancers diagnosed using batch reading, 73% were minimal and 91% were low stage. The mean size of cancers, 11.7 mm without batch reading and 9.1 mm with batch reading, also showed no statistically significant difference.

CONCLUSION. Our experience shows that batch reading can significantly reduce screening mammography recall rates without affecting the cancer detection rate or the proportion of cancers diagnosed with favorable prognostic indicators.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
RadiologyHome page
J. A. Harvey, B. T. Nicholson, and M. A. Cohen
Finding Early Invasive Breast Cancers: A Practical Approach
Radiology, July 1, 2008; 248(1): 61 - 76.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
P. Skaane, S. Hofvind, and A. Skjennald
Randomized Trial of Screen-Film versus Full-Field Digital Mammography with Soft-Copy Reading in Population-based Screening Program: Follow-up and Final Results of Oslo II Study
Radiology, September 1, 2007; 244(3): 708 - 717.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2005 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.