Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2020 Feb 1;93(1106):20190610.
doi: 10.1259/bjr.20190610. Epub 2019 Oct 23.

Double reading in breast cancer screening: considerations for policy-making

Affiliations
Review

Double reading in breast cancer screening: considerations for policy-making

Sian Taylor-Phillips et al. Br J Radiol. .

Abstract

In this article, we explore the evidence around the relative benefits and harms of breast cancer screening using a single radiologist to examine each female's mammograms for signs of cancer (single reading), or two radiologists (double reading). First, we briefly explore the historical evidence using film-screen mammography, before providing an in-depth description of evidence using digital mammography. We classify studies according to which exact version of double reading they use, because the evidence suggests that effectiveness of double reading is contingent on whether the two radiologists are blinded to one another's decisions, and how the decisions of the two radiologists are integrated. Finally, we explore the implications for future mammography, including using artificial intelligence as the second reader, and applications to more complex three-dimensional imaging techniques such as tomosynthesis.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Fitzmaurice C, Allen C, Barber RM, Barregard L, Bhutta ZA, Brenner H, et al. . Global, regional, and National cancer incidence, mortality, years of life lost, years lived with disability, and Disability-Adjusted life-years for 32 cancer groups, 1990 to 2015: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study. JAMA Oncol 2017; 3: 524–48. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.5688 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Nelson HD, Cantor A, Humphrey L, et al. . Preventive services Task force evidence syntheses, formerly systematic evidence reviews, screening for breast cancer: a systematic review to update the 2009 U. S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation. Rockville (MD), Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality 2016;. - PubMed
    1. Myers ER, Moorman P, Gierisch JM, et al. . Benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: a systematic review. Jama 2015; 314: 1615–34. - PubMed
    1. Marmot MG, Altman DG, Cameron DA, Dewar JA, Thompson SG, Wilcox M, et al. . The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Br J Cancer 2013; 108: 2205–40. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2013.177 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lehman CD, Wellman RD, Buist DSM, Kerlikowske K, Tosteson ANA, Miglioretti DL, et al. . Diagnostic accuracy of digital screening mammography with and without computer-aided detection. JAMA Intern Med 2015; 175: 1828–37. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.5231 - DOI - PMC - PubMed