title: Comparison of recall and cancer detection rates for immediate versus batch interpretation of screening mammograms.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To retrospectively compare recall and cancer detection rates between immediate and subsequent batch methods for interpretation of screening mammograms.
  
  
  METHODS
  Institutional review board approval was obtained, and informed consent was waived. Retrospective analysis was performed for 8698 screening mammograms obtained between January 1 and October 31, 2001, which were interpreted either immediately (n = 4113) or subsequently with batch method (n = 4585). Data were collected from data reporting system and patient billing records. Patients with high risk factors were excluded; 3441 patients were in the immediate group, and 3932 were in the batch group. The two groups were compared with respect to age, breast density, and availability of comparison films with Wilcoxon rank sum test. Recall rates and cancer detection rates for each group were determined and compared with Pearson chi(2) test; false-negative rates were compared with Fischer exact test.
  
  
  RESULTS
  A significant difference (P < .001) was noted in recall rates between immediate (18%) and batch (14%) groups; however, no significant difference (P = .7) was noted in cancer detection rates (immediate, 0.5%; batch, 0.4%). Mean age of patients was 56.8 years (age range, 21-96 years) in the immediate group and 56.2 years (age range 24-98 years) in the batch group (P = .02). Comparison of breast densities between groups indicates no statistically significant difference (P = .4). The batch group had significantly fewer comparison mammograms (3106 [79%]) available than the immediate group (2856 [83%]) (P < .001). There was no significant difference in false-negative rates between the immediate group (0.1%) and the batch group (0.1%) (P > .99).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Immediate interpretation of screening mammograms resulted in a statistically significant increase in recalls and additional clinical work-ups of perceived abnormalities; however, no significant difference in cancer detection rate was detected between groups.
authors.affiliation: Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, South Hospital, Box 3808, Durham, NC 27710, USA. ghate001@mc.duke.edu
authors.forename: Sujata V
authors.initials: SV
authors.lastname: Ghate
authors.forename: Mary Scott
authors.initials: MS
authors.lastname: Soo
authors.forename: Jay A
authors.initials: JA
authors.lastname: Baker
authors.forename: Ruth
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Walsh
authors.forename: Edgardo I
authors.initials: EI
authors.lastname: Gimenez
authors.forename: Eric L
authors.initials: EL
authors.lastname: Rosen
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D001943:Breast Neoplasms / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging*; D005188:False Negative Reactions; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008327:Mammography / Q000592:standards*; D008403:Mass Screening; D011939:Mental Recall; D008875:Middle Aged; D012189:Retrospective Studies