PubMed1999
OBJECTIVE: To examine the reasons for observer variability of cancer detection using one and two view mammography at incident (subsequent) screening and determine whether false negative results (non-recall of a cancer) are due to failure to detect the associated features(s) of the cancer on the mammogram, or misinterpretation of the observed feature(s) as not indicative of malignancy. SETTING: A random selection of cancers (invasive and in situ) seen as incident cases during the second screening round (January 1994-January 1997) in the South West London Breast Screening Service were used. This service uses two view mammography and double reading with arbitration by a third or further readers for all screens. METHODS: Mammograms of cases were mixed with those of controls in a 1:2 ratio in two test sets. Eleven experienced film readers, each reading both test sets, took part in the study. Initially the oblique view only was read, then, additionally, the craniocaudal view. Previous films were available to the readers. Data on abnormalities noted on the films and probability of recall were recorded and analysed. RESULTS: 387 valid readings of 36 cancers (30 invasive and six ductal carcinoma in situ) were made by 11 readers. The overall sensitivity increased from 79% with one view to 85% with two views. For invasive cancers < 10 mm the sensitivity was 71% with one view, but increased to 85% with two views. Recall of individual cancers by the readers varied substantially. With one view 15 (50%) of the 30 invasive cancers were recalled by all 11 readers, increasing to 18 (60%) with two views. Of the invasive cancers not recalled by all 11 readers, there was considerable disagreement, particularly for the smaller cancers. With one view 69% of invasive cancers < 10 mm were correctly marked on the proforma compared with 87% with two views. Invasive cancers > 10 mm were almost all marked on the proforma with one or two views. For invasive cancers, the misinterpreted feature that did not lead to recall was most commonly an asymmetry (42%), whereas for in situ cancers it was calcifications (67%). The finding of an irregular mass was the least misinterpreted feature. CONCLUSION: The study showed that of those invasive cancers detected at routine repeat screening by a programme using two view mammography and double reading with arbitration, at least 50% could be described as "difficult" (for example, "minimal" signs) to recall using the single reading of one view, even under "favourable" study conditions with two normal subjects per case. The finding that at least 87% of invasive cancers < 10 mm are detected (marked on the proforma) with two views, but only 69% with the one view, suggests that for single reading of mammograms with one view the detection of small invasive cancers is a major problem. This problem is helped by the second view. For invasive cancers > or = 10 mm, interpretation (benign or malignant) rather than detection (under these study conditions) was the major cause of recall failure. The most common signs to be misinterpreted were calcifications and asymmetries; once visualised an irregular mass was least likely to be misinterpreted. This study provides evidence that detection and interpretation of most invasive cancers is improved by increasing the number of views, and by increasing the number of readers.