New
Service for TodaysSeniorsNetwork.com
readers...roll mouse over, click on
highlighted links in stories to review items
from Amazon
Now, keep up to date
with daily feeds of newly posted stories
about America's Seniors...click on the box
to the left
Single reader with CAD more efficient,
yields fewer false positives, and possibly
more sensitive than double reading of
Mammograms
Newswise — Single reading of screening mammograms with
computer-aided detection (CAD) is more
efficient than double reading and yields a
higher sensitivity than the first reader in
a double reading program, according to a
study conducted by researchers at Charlotte
Radiology in Charlotte, NC.
In addition, the readings with CAD had a significantly lower
recall rate than double reading.
The double reading method consisted of the mammogram being first
read by sub-specialized mammographers, with
the second reading performed by either a
specialist or a general radiologist who is
certified in mammography. Single reading
with CAD was performed by sub-specialized
mammographers.
The study compared the recall rate, sensitivity, positive
predictive value (PPV), and cancer detection
rate of single reading with CAD to double
reading and to the first reader in the
double reading program in 231,221 mammograms
from 2001-2005.
The study shows that single reading with CAD was as effective at
finding cancers as double reading and had a
lower recall rate.
“Because double reading is time consuming and not generally
reimbursed, CAD has become increasingly
popular in the United States as an
alternative way to increase sensitivity,”
said Matthew Gromet, JD, MD, author of the
study.
According to the study, statistically significant results
included a lower recall rate with CAD
compared to double reading (10.6% vs.
11.9%), increased sensitivity with CAD
compared to the first reader (90.4% vs.
81.4%), and increased recall rate with CAD
compared with the first reader (10.6% vs.
10.2%).
The sensitivity of single reading with CAD was slightly higher
than double reading (90.4% vs. 88.0%),
although this difference did not reach
statistical significance.
“With manpower and cost constraints limiting the use of double
reading, CAD appears to be an effective and
more widely accessible alternative that
provides a lower recall rate and equal or
possibly higher sensitivity,” said Dr.
Gromet.
The full results of this study will appear in the April 2008
issue of the American Journal of
Roentgenology.
...
...
...