Journal of the National Cancer Institute Advance Access originally published online on July 24, 2007
JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2007 99(15):1137; doi:10.1093/jnci/djm112
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
© Oxford University Press 2007.
MEMO TO THE MEDIA |
Press Release
Additional Mammogram Readers Improve Breast Cancer Detection
jncimedia{at}oxfordjournals.org
301-841-1287
Mammogram readings by both radiologists and non-physician technologists improve breast cancer detection rates, according to a study in the July 24 Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
Studies have shown that breast cancer detection may increase when mammograms are reviewed by both a radiologist and a mammographic technologist. In The Netherlands, a breast cancer screening program was implemented in the 1990s that required all mammograms be read by two radiologists. Mammographic technologists were also trained to look for abnormalities.
Lucien Duijm, M.D., Ph.D., of Catharina Hospital in Eindhoven, The Netherlands, and colleagues examined whether adding readings by two technologists to the standard examination by two radiologists would improve cancer detection rates and the accuracy of the readings.
The breast cancer detection rate increased 6.8% (from 5.27 to 5.63 cancers per 1,000 women screened) when the mammograms were read by two technologists and two radiologists. And adding two technologists only slightly increased the number of false positives, compared with readings by a pair of radiologists alone.
"Our results indicate that all technologist-positive readings should be considered for [further] examination because this subset of screening mammograms shows a high prevalence of breast cancer," the authors write.
In an accompanying editorial, Joann Elmore, M.D., of Harborview Medical Center in Seattle and James Brenner, M.D., J.D., of the University of California, San Francisco discuss the challenges of generalizing the results of the study because of differences in screening programs around the world.
"Ultimately, deciding on the number of readers needed to interpret a screening mammogram will depend on how many readers are available and which outcomes we seek," the authors write.
Contact:
- Article: Brigitte Rijshouwer, department of public relations, Cathartina Hospital, +31 40 2399111, Brigitte.Rijshouwer{at}catharina-ziekenhuis.nl
- Editorial: Joann Elmore, (206)731-3680, jelmore{at}u.washington.edu
Citations:
- Article: Duijm LEM, Groenewoud JH, Fracheboud J, De Koning HJ. Additional Double Reading of Screening Mammograms by Radiologic Technologists: Impact on Screening Performance Parameters. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007; 1162–1170
- Editorial: Elmore JG, Brenner RJ. The More Eyes, the Better to See? From Double to Quadruple Reading of Screening Mammograms. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007; 99: 1141–1143
Note to Reporters:
We are starting up an e-mail list to alert reporters when papers are available on the EurekAlert site. If you would be interested on being on this list, please let us know at jncimedia{at}oxfordjournals.org. The content will continue to be available through EurekAlert’s e-mail system and our EurekAlert page.
The Journal of the National Cancer Institute is published by Oxford University Press and is not affiliated with the National Cancer Institute. Attribution to the Journal of the National Cancer Institute is requested in all news coverage. Visit the Journal online at http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/.
Related Articles in JNCI
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
J Natl Cancer Inst 2007 99: 1162-1170.
J Natl Cancer Inst 2007 99: 1141-1143.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||