title: Performance of double reading mammography in an Iranian population and its effect on patient outcome.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Considering the importance and responsibility of reporting mammography and the necessity to notice details with a high degree of precision, double reading mammography has been introduced and recommended.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  This study aimed to assess the performance of double reading of mammograms and its effect on patient outcomes.
  
  
  METHODS
  Throughout this cross sectional study, 1284 digitized mammographic views of 642 breasts which belonged to 339 women (of which 303 were bilateral and 36 were unilateral mammographies) were enrolled. Two independent radiologists interpreted these mammograms and BI-RADS categories of both reports were compared. Discordant results were determined and assumed significant if they were in the positive (BI-RADS 0, 4, 5) versus negative (BI-RADS 1, 2, 3) groups and then significant discordant cases were followed up to determine benign versus malignant final diagnosis. The recall rate was calculated for each reader. Inter-observer agreement in breast density was determined by Kappa test.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Readers had consensus on BI-RADS categories in 459 breasts (71%), but diverse categories were used for 183 breasts (29%), including 132 significant and 51 non-significant discrepancies. According to weighted Kappa test, agreement between two readers in positive or negative reports was 0.78 (95% CI=0.73-0.83) and in parenchymal density, it was 0.73 (95% CI=0.7-0.77). Most of the discrepancies were between category zero versus categories 1 and 2 (63.4%). The recall rate was 36% for the first and 44% for the second reader. Among 132 significant discordant results, one case had the final diagnosis of malignancy and the others had benign or negative diagnosis. There was 0.2% increase in cancer detection rate by double reading.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  This study shows no significant improvement in the cancer detection rate by double reading; however, a lower recall rate could be a more helpful consequence.
authors.affiliation: Department of Radiology, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
authors.forename: Maryam
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Moradi
authors.forename: Kobra
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Ganji
authors.forename: Niloufar
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Teyfouri
authors.forename: Farzaneh
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Kolahdoozan
keywords: Double Reading; Mammography; Recall Rate
references.citation: Clin Radiol. 1994 Apr;49(4):248-51
references.pmid: 8162681
references.citation: Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1999 Apr;54(3):261-7
references.pmid: 10445425
references.citation: Ann Acad Med Singap. 2003 Jul;32(4):438-41
references.pmid: 12968545
references.citation: Breast. 2006 Aug;15(4):528-32
references.pmid: 16236517
references.citation: Radiology. 2007 Jun;243(3):681-9
references.pmid: 17517927
references.citation: Radiology. 1994 Apr;191(1):241-4
references.pmid: 8134580
references.citation: Radiol Clin North Am. 2007 Sep;45(5):751-63, v
references.pmid: 17888766
references.citation: Acad Radiol. 1996 Nov;3(11):891-7
references.pmid: 8959178
references.citation: Breast. 2007 Dec;16(6):568-76
references.pmid: 18035541
references.citation: Radiol Med. 2000 Jul-Aug;100(1-2):21-3
references.pmid: 11109446
references.citation: J Med Screen. 1998;5(4):202-6
references.pmid: 9934651
references.citation: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000 Jun;174(6):1769-77
references.pmid: 10845521
references.citation: Breast J. 2008 Nov-Dec;14(6):605-6
references.pmid: 19000044
references.citation: Radiology. 2009 Dec;253(3):652-60
references.pmid: 19789229
references.citation: Breast. 2005 Aug;14(4):269-75
references.pmid: 16085233
references.citation: Ann Oncol. 2008 Apr;19(4):614-22
references.pmid: 18024988
references.citation: Radiol Clin North Am. 2000 Jul;38(4):719-24
references.pmid: 10943273
references.citation: J Med Screen. 2005;12(3):125-7
references.pmid: 16156942
references.citation: Breast. 2001 Dec;10(6):455-63
references.pmid: 14965624
references.citation: Ann Oncol. 2011 Jan;22(1):93-97
references.pmid: 20534622
references.citation: J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007 Aug 1;99(15):1162-70
references.pmid: 17652282
references.citation: Radiol Med. 2011 Jun;116(4):575-83
references.pmid: 21424314
references.citation: Br J Radiol. 1995 Sep;68(813):958-62
references.pmid: 7496693
references.citation: J Med Screen. 1995;2(2):99-101
references.pmid: 7497164
references.citation: Clin Radiol. 2005 Nov;60(11):1182-7
references.pmid: 16223614
references.citation: J Med Screen. 2005;12(2):103-6
references.pmid: 15949122