Abstract
Abstract
Objectives
In breast cancer screening, two readers separately examine each woman’s mammograms for signs of cancer. We examined whether preventing the two readers from seeing each other’s decisions (blinding) affects behaviour and outcomes.
Methods
This cohort study used data from the CO-OPS breast-screening trial (1,119,191 women from 43 screening centres in England) where all discrepant readings were arbitrated. Multilevel models were fitted using Markov chain Monte Carlo to measure whether reader 2 conformed to the decisions of reader 1 when they were not blinded, and the effect of blinding on overall rates of recall for further tests and cancer detection. Differences in positive predictive value (PPV) were assessed using Pearson’s chi-squared test.
Results
When reader 1 recalls, the probability of reader 2 also recalling was higher when not blinded than when blinded, suggesting readers may be influenced by the other’s decision. Overall, women were less likely to be recalled when reader 2 was blinded (OR 0.923; 95% credible interval 0.864, 0.986), with no clear pattern in cancer detection rate (OR 1.029; 95% credible interval 0.970, 1.089; Bayesian p value 0.832). PPV was 22.1% for blinded versus 20.6% for not blinded (p < 0.001).
Conclusions
Our results suggest that when not blinded, reader 2 is influenced by reader 1’s decisions to recall (alliterative bias) which would result in bypassing arbitration and negate some of the benefits of double-reading. We found a relationship between blinding the second reader and slightly higher PPV of breast cancer screening, although this analysis may be confounded by other centre characteristics.
Key Points
• In Europe, it is recommended that breast screening mammograms are analysed by two readers but there is little evidence on the effect of ‘blinding’ the readers so they cannot see each other’s decisions.
• We found evidence that when the second reader is not blinded, they are more likely to agree with a recall decision from the first reader and less likely to make an independent judgement (alliterative error). This may reduce overall accuracy through bypassing arbitration.
• This observational study suggests an association between blinding the second reader and higher positive predictive value of screening, but this may be confounded by centre characteristics.
Funder
NIHR Career Development Fellowship
NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging,General Medicine
Reference29 articles.
1. Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C, Tornberg S, Holland R, von Karsa L (2008) European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth edition--summary document. Ann Oncol 19:614–622
2. European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (2020) European guidelines on breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Available via https://healthcare-quality.jrc.ec.europa.eu/european-breast-cancer-guidelines. Accessed 16 Oct 2020
3. Thurfjell EL, Lernevall KA, Taube AA (1994) Benefit of independent double reading in a population-based mammography screening program. Radiology 191:241–244
4. Brown J, Bryan S, Warren R (1996) Mammography screening: an incremental cost effectiveness analysis of double versus single reading of mammograms. BMJ 312:809–812
5. Ciatto S, Ambrogetti D, Bonardi R et al (2005) Second reading of screening mammograms increases cancer detection and recall rates. Results in the Florence screening programme. J Med Screen 12:103–106
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献