Does Double Reading of Screening Breast MRI Scans Impact Recall Rates and Cancer Detection?

被引:3
作者
Chan, Jason [1 ,2 ]
Seely, Jean [1 ]
Lau, Jacqueline [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Ottawa, Ottawa Hosp, Dept Med Imaging, Ottawa, ON, Canada
[2] Univ Ottawa, Ottawa Hosp, Dept Med Imaging, 1053 Carling Ave,C1, Ottawa, ON K1Y 4E9, Canada
来源
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF RADIOLOGISTS JOURNAL-JOURNAL DE L ASSOCIATION CANADIENNE DES RADIOLOGISTES | 2023年 / 74卷 / 02期
关键词
double read; MRI; cancer detection rate; positive predictive value of recommendation for tissue diagnosis; positive predictive value of biopsies performed; recall rates;
D O I
10.1177/08465371221137522
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Objective: To investigate the effect of double reads by a second radiologist on cancer detection rate (CDR), positive predictive value of recommendation for tissue diagnosis (PPV2), and the positive predictive value of biopsy performed (PPV3) for biopsy recommendations in high-risk screening breast MRIs. Methods: The policy of second reads on biopsies recommended for MRIs was prospectively implemented in October 2019. This IRB approved retrospective analysis compared consecutive high-risk screening breast MRI scans performed in a single academic institution between 06/01/2018 to 06/01/2019 (pre-intervention) with screening breast MRI scans performed between 10/31/2019 to 10/31/2020 (post-intervention). Pathology results after biopsy were recorded. Testing of association was performed using the Chi-square test. Results/Discussion: A total of 1124 screening breast MRIs in the pre-intervention and 1672 screening breast MRIs were performed in the post-intervention periods. Biopsies were recommended in 8.6% (97/1124) of pre-intervention and 5.5% (92/1672) of post-intervention MRIs (P = .0012). There was a non-significant increase in PPV2 from pre-intervention 10.3% (10/97) to post-intervention 18.4% (17/92) (P = .109) and in PPV3 from 14% (10/71) to 22.9% (17/ 74), respectively (P = .17). Similar cancer detection rates, 8.9/1000 (10/1124) and 10.2/1000 (17/1672) (P = .736) were diagnosed in pre-intervention and post-intervention periods, respectively. Conclusion: Double reading of screening breast MRI scans significantly reduced the number of unnecessary biopsies without significant impact in the PPVs or cancer detection rate.
引用
收藏
页码:398 / 403
页数:6
相关论文
共 13 条
  • [1] Survival outcomes of screening with breast MRI in high-risk women.
    Bae, Min Sun
    Sung, Janice S.
    Han, Wonshik
    Bernard-Davila, Blanca
    Bara, Filipe R.
    Sutton, Elizabeth J.
    Comstock, Christopher
    Jochelson, Maxine S.
    Morris, Elizabeth Ann
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2017, 35
  • [2] Performance Measures of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Plus Mammography in the High Risk Ontario Breast Screening Program
    Chiarelli, Anna M.
    Blackmore, Kristina M.
    Muradali, Derek
    Done, Susan J.
    Majpruz, Vicky
    Weerasinghe, Ashini
    Mirea, Lucia
    Eisen, Andrea
    Rabeneck, Linda
    Warner, Ellen
    [J]. JNCI-JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 2020, 112 (02): : 136 - 144
  • [3] Impact of the second reader on screening outcome at blinded double reading of digital screening mammograms
    Coolen, Angela M. P.
    Voogd, Adri C.
    Strobbe, Luc J.
    Louwman, Marieke W. J.
    Tjan-Heijnen, Vivianne C. G.
    Duijm, Lucien E. M.
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2018, 119 (04) : 503 - 507
  • [4] D'Orsi C.J., 2013, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data SystemACR BI-RADS Atlas
  • [5] Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, and Pancreatic, Version 2.2021
    Daly, Mary B.
    Pal, Tuya
    Berry, Michael P.
    Buys, Saundra S.
    Dickson, Patricia
    Domchek, Susan M.
    Elkhanany, Ahmed
    Friedman, Susan
    Goggins, Michael
    Hutton, Mollie L.
    Karlan, Beth Y.
    Khan, Seema
    Klein, Catherine
    Kohlmann, Wendy
    Kurian, Allison W.
    Laronga, Christine
    Litton, Jennifer K.
    Mak, Julie S.
    Menendez, Carolyn S.
    Merajver, Sofia D.
    Norquist, Barbara S.
    Offit, Kenneth
    Pederson, Holly J.
    Reiser, Gwen
    Senter-Jamieson, Leigha
    Shannon, Kristen Mahoney
    Shatsky, Rebecca
    Visvanathan, Kala
    Weitzel, Jeffrey N.
    Wick, Myra J.
    Wisinski, Kari B.
    Yurgelun, Matthew B.
    Darlow, Susan D.
    Dwyer, Mary A.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL COMPREHENSIVE CANCER NETWORK, 2021, 19 (01): : 77 - 102
  • [6] DeMartini Wendy, 2008, Top Magn Reson Imaging, V19, P143, DOI 10.1097/RMR.0b013e31818a40a5
  • [7] Performance Benchmarks for Screening Breast MR Imaging in Community Practice
    Lee, Janie M.
    Ichikawa, Laura
    Valencia, Elizabeth
    Miglioretti, Diana L.
    Wernli, Karen
    Buist, Diana S. M.
    Kerlikowske, Karla
    Henderson, Louise M.
    Sprague, Brian L.
    Onega, Tracy
    Rauscher, Garth H.
    Lehman, Constance D.
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 2017, 285 (01) : 44 - 52
  • [8] Lukaszewicz A, 2018, RSNA ABSTRACT PRESEN
  • [9] Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of double reading in digital mammography screening: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Posso, Margarita
    Puig, Teresa
    Carles, Misericordia
    Rue, Montserrat
    Canelo-Aybar, Carlos
    Bonfill, Xavier
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2017, 96 : 40 - 49
  • [10] Cost-Effectiveness of Double Reading versus Single Reading of Mammograms in a Breast Cancer Screening Programme
    Posso, Margarita
    Carles, Misericordia
    Rue, Montserrat
    Puig, Teresa
    Bonfill, Xavier
    [J]. PLOS ONE, 2016, 11 (07):