Skip to main content
PMC home page
The BMJ logoLink to The BMJ
. 1996 Mar 30;312(7034):809–812. doi: 10.1136/bmj.312.7034.809

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

J Brown 1, S Bryan 1, R Warren 1
PMCID: PMC2350705  PMID: 8608287

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-- 33 734 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 10 000 women screened (95% confidence interval 5 to 13) compared with single reading. A non-consensus double reading policy detected an additional 10 cancers per 10 000 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 4853 pounds per 10 000 women screened). Non-consensus double reading cost more than single reading (difference 19 259 pounds per 10 000 women screened). CONCLUSIONS--In the screening unit studied a consensus double reading policy was more effective and less costly than a single reading policy.

Full text

PDF
809

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Anderson E. D., Muir B. B., Walsh J. S., Kirkpatrick A. E. The efficacy of double reading mammograms in breast screening. Clin Radiol. 1994 Apr;49(4):248–251. doi: 10.1016/s0009-9260(05)81850-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Andersson I., Aspegren K., Janzon L., Landberg T., Lindholm K., Linell F., Ljungberg O., Ranstam J., Sigfússon B. Mammographic screening and mortality from breast cancer: the Malmö mammographic screening trial. BMJ. 1988 Oct 15;297(6654):943–948. doi: 10.1136/bmj.297.6654.943. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bryan S., Buxton M., McKenna M., Ashton H., Scott A. Private costs associated with abdominal aortic aneurysm screening: the importance of private travel and time costs. J Med Screen. 1995;2(2):62–66. doi: 10.1177/096914139500200202. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Chamberlain J., Moss S. M., Kirkpatrick A. E., Michell M., Johns L. National Health Service breast screening programme results for 1991-2. BMJ. 1993 Aug 7;307(6900):353–356. doi: 10.1136/bmj.307.6900.353. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Sculpher M. J., Buxton M. J., Ferguson B. A., Spiegelhalter D. J., Kirby A. J. Screening for diabetic retinopathy: a relative cost-effectiveness analysis of alternative modalities and strategies. Health Econ. 1992 Apr;1(1):39–51. doi: 10.1002/hec.4730010107. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Tabár L., Fagerberg C. J., Gad A., Baldetorp L., Holmberg L. H., Gröntoft O., Ljungquist U., Lundström B., Månson J. C., Eklund G. Reduction in mortality from breast cancer after mass screening with mammography. Randomised trial from the Breast Cancer Screening Working Group of the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare. Lancet. 1985 Apr 13;1(8433):829–832. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(85)92204-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Thurfjell E. L., Lernevall K. A., Taube A. A. Benefit of independent double reading in a population-based mammography screening program. Radiology. 1994 Apr;191(1):241–244. doi: 10.1148/radiology.191.1.8134580. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Verbeek A. L., Hendriks J. H., Holland R., Mravunac M., Sturmans F., Day N. E. Reduction of breast cancer mortality through mass screening with modern mammography. First results of the Nijmegen project, 1975-1981. Lancet. 1984 Jun 2;1(8388):1222–1224. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(84)91703-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Warren R. M., Duffy S. W. Comparison of single reading with double reading of mammograms, and change in effectiveness with experience. Br J Radiol. 1995 Sep;68(813):958–962. doi: 10.1259/0007-1285-68-813-958. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Woodman C. B., Threlfall A. G., Boggis C. R., Prior P. Is the three year breast screening interval too long? Occurrence of interval cancers in NHS breast screening programme's north western region. BMJ. 1995 Jan 28;310(6974):224–226. doi: 10.1136/bmj.310.6974.224. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from BMJ : British Medical Journal are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES