Papers

Mammography screening: an incremental cost effectiveness analysis of double versus single reading of mammograms

^a Health Economics Research Group, Brunel University, Uxbridge, Middlesex UB8 3PH, ^b Breast Screening Service, St Margaret's Hospital, Epping CM16 6TN

Correspondence to: Dr Brown.

Abstract

Objective: To compare mammography reading by one radiologist with independent reading by two radiologists.
Design: An observational non-randomised trial at St Margaret's Hospital, Epping.
Subjects: 33734 consecutive attenders for breast screening in the main trial and a sample of 132 attenders for assessment who provided data on private costs.
Interventions: Three reporting policies were compared: single reading, consensus double reading, and non-consensus double reading.
Main outcome measures: Numbers of cancers detected, recall rates, screening and assessment costs, and cost effectiveness ratios.
Results: A policy of double reading followed by consensus detected an additional nine cancers per 10000 women screened (95% confidence interval 5 to 13) compared with single reading. A non-consensus double reading policy detected an additional 10 cancers per 10000 women screened (95% confidence interval 6 to 14). The difference in numbers of cancers detected between the consensus and non-consensus double reading policies was not significant (95% confidence interval -0.2 to 2.2). The proportion of women recalled for assessment after consensus double reading was significantly lower than after single reading (difference 2.7%; 95% confidence interval 2.4% to 3.0%). The recall rate with the non-consensus policy was significantly higher than with single reading (difference 3.0%; 2.5% to 3.5%). Consensus double reading cost less than single reading (saving pounds sterling4853 per 10000 women screened). Non-consensus double reading cost more than single reading (difference pounds sterling19259 per 10000 women screened).
Conclusions: In the screening unit studied a consensus double reading policy was more effective and less costly than a single reading policy.

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

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Hofvind, S., Vacek, P. M., Skelly, J., Weaver, D. L., Geller, B. M. (2008). Comparing Screening Mammography for Early Breast Cancer Detection in Vermont and Norway. JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst 100: 1082-1091 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Hollingworth, W. (2005). Radiology Cost and Outcomes Studies: Standard Practice and Emerging Methods. Am. J. Roentgenol. 185: 833-839 [Full text]  
• Peldschus, K., Herzog, P., Wood, S. A., Cheema, J. I., Costello, P., Schoepf, U. J. (2005). Computer-Aided Diagnosis as a Second Reader: Spectrum of Findings in CT Studies of the Chest Interpreted as Normal. Chest 128: 1517-1523 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Ghate, S. V., Soo, M. S., Baker, J. A., Walsh, R., Gimenez, E. I., Rosen, E. L. (2005). Comparison of Recall and Cancer Detection Rates for Immediate versus Batch Interpretation of Screening Mammograms. Radiology 235: 31-35 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Mandelblatt, J., Armetta, C., Yabroff, K. R., Liang, W., Lawrence, W. (2004). Descriptive Review of the Literature on Breast Cancer Outcomes: 1990 Through 2000. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2004: 8-44 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Elmore, J. G., Nakano, C. Y., Koepsell, T. D., Desnick, L. M., D'Orsi, C. J., Ransohoff, D. F. (2003). International Variation in Screening Mammography Interpretations in Community-Based Programs. JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst 95: 1384-1393 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Brem, R. F., Baum, J., Lechner, M., Kaplan, S., Souders, S., Naul, L. G., Hoffmeister, J. (2003). Improvement in Sensitivity of Screening Mammography with Computer-Aided Detection: A Multiinstitutional Trial. Am. J. Roentgenol. 181: 687-693 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Karssemeijer, N., Otten, J. D. M., Verbeek, A. L. M., Groenewoud, J. H., de Koning, H. J., Hendriks, J. H. C. L., Holland, R. (2003). Computer-aided Detection versus Independent Double Reading of Masses on Mammograms. Radiology 227: 192-200 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Yankaskas, B. C., Schell, M. J., Bird, R. E., Desrochers, D. A. (2001). Reassessment of Breast Cancers Missed During Routine Screening Mammography: A Community-Based Study. Am. J. Roentgenol. 177: 535-541 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Yankaskas, B. C., Cleveland, R. J., Schell, M. J., Kozar, R. (2001). Association of Recall Rates with Sensitivity and Positive Predictive Values of Screening Mammography. Am. J. Roentgenol. 177: 543-549 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Lindfors, K. K., O’Connor, J., Parker, R. A. (2001). False-Positive Screening Mammograms: Effect of Immediate versus Later Work-up on Patient Stress. Radiology 218: 247-253 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Warren Burhenne, L. J., Wood, S. A., D'Orsi, C. J., Feig, S. A., Kopans, D. B., O'Shaughnessy, K. F., Sickles, E. A., Tabar, L., Vyborny, C. J., Castellino, R. A. (2000). Potential Contribution of Computer-aided Detection to the Sensitivity of Screening Mammography. Radiology 215: 554-562 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Taplin, S. H., Rutter, C. M., Elmore, J. G., Seger, D., White, D., Brenner, R. J. (2000). Accuracy of Screening Mammography Using Single Versus Independent Double Interpretation. Am. J. Roentgenol. 174: 1257-1262 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Johnston, K., Brown, J. (1999). Two view mammography at incident screens: cost effectiveness analysis of policy options. BMJ 319: 1097-1102 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Tonita, J. M., Hillis, J. P., Lim, C.-H. (1999). Medical Radiologic Technologist Review: Effects on a Population-based Breast Cancer Screening Program. Radiology 211: 529-533 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Wells, J., Cooke, J. (1996). Double reading of screening mammograms will have resource implications. BMJ 313: 109c-110 [Full text]  
• (1996). READING MAMMOGRAMS TWICE MAKES A DIFFERENCE. JWatch General 1996: 4-4 [Full text]