Effect of Using the Same vs Different Order for Second Readings of Screening Mammograms on Rates of Breast Cancer Detection: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE Interpreting screening mammograms is a difficult repetitive task that can result in missed cancers and false-positive recalls. In the United Kingdom, 2 film readers independently evaluate each mammogram to search for signs of cancer and examine digital mammograms in batches. However, a vigilance decrement (reduced detection rate with time on task) has been observed in similar settings. OBJECTIVE To determine the effect of changing the order for the second film reader of batches of screening mammograms on rates of breast cancer detection. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A multicenter, double-blind, cluster randomized clinical trial conducted at 46 specialized breast screening centers from the National Health Service Breast Screening Program in England for 1 year (all between December 20, 2012, and November 3, 2014). Three hundred sixty readers participated (mean, 7.8 readers per center)-186 radiologists, 143 radiography advanced practitioners, and 31 breast clinicians, all fully qualified to report mammograms in the NHS breast screening program. INTERVENTIONS The 2 readers examined each batch of digital mammograms in the same order in the control group and in the opposite order to one another in the intervention group. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was cancer detection rate; secondary outcomes were rates of recall and disagreements between readers. RESULTS Among 1,194,147 women (mean age, 59.3; SD, 7.49) who had screening mammograms (596,642 in the intervention group; 597,505 in the control group), the images were interpreted in 37,688 batches (median batch size, 35; interquartile range [IQR]; 16-46), with each reader interpreting a median of 176 batches (IQR, 96-278). After completion of all subsequent diagnostic tests, a total of 10,484 cases (0.88%) of breast cancer were detected. There was no significant difference in cancer detection rate with 5272 cancers (0.88%) detected in the intervention group vs 5212 cancers (0.87%) detected in the control group (difference, 0.01% points; 95% CI, -0.02% to 0.04% points; recall rate, 24,681 [4.14%] vs 24,894 [4.17%]; difference, -0.03% points; 95% CI, -0.10% to 0.04% points; or rate of reader disagreements, 20,471 [3.43%] vs 20,793 [3.48%]; difference, -0.05% points; 95% CI, -0.11% to 0.02% points). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Interpretation of batches of mammograms by qualified screening mammography readers using a different order vs the same order for the second reading resulted in no significant difference in rates of detection of breast cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN46603370.

[1]  S. Moss,et al.  Interval cancers in the NHS breast cancer screening programme in England, Wales and Northern Ireland , 2011, British Journal of Cancer.

[2]  Julie Cooke,et al.  QUALITY ASSURANCE GUIDELINES FOR BREAST CANCER SCREENING RADIOLOGY , 2005 .

[3]  Mark W. Wiggins,et al.  Vigilance decrement during a simulated general aviation flight , 2011 .

[4]  M. M. Ayoub,et al.  A Behavioral Analysis of an Assembly Line Inspection Task , 1969, Human factors.

[5]  W. T. Nelson,et al.  Target Acquisition With UAVs: Vigilance Displays and Advanced Cuing Interfaces , 2005, Hum. Factors.

[6]  Adrian J. Ecker,et al.  Effects of night work, sleep loss and time on task on simulated threat detection performance. , 2008, Sleep.

[7]  Judi E. See,et al.  Meta-analysis of the sensitivity decrement in vigilance. , 1995 .

[8]  P. Hancock,et al.  In search of vigilance: the problem of iatrogenically created psychological phenomena. , 2013, The American psychologist.

[9]  Luisa P. Wallace,et al.  The "laboratory" effect: comparing radiologists' performance and variability during prospective clinical and laboratory mammography interpretations. , 2008, Radiology.

[10]  M. Wallis,et al.  Changing case Order to Optimise patterns of Performance in mammography Screening (CO-OPS): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial , 2014, Trials.

[11]  William J. Browne,et al.  A User's Guide To Mlwin , 2015 .

[12]  Basile Chaix,et al.  A brief conceptual tutorial of multilevel analysis in social epidemiology: linking the statistical concept of clustering to the idea of contextual phenomenon , 2005, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.

[13]  R Holland,et al.  European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth edition--summary document. , 2008, Annals of Oncology.

[14]  Andrew Thatcher,et al.  Work exposure and vigilance decrements in closed circuit television surveillance. , 2015, Applied ergonomics.

[15]  H. Goldstein.  Multilevel Statistical Models , 2006 .

[16]  Claudia Mello-Thoms,et al.  Retrospective Review of the Drop in Observer Detection Performance Over Time in Lesion-enriched Experimental Studies , 2014, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[17]  Joris C Verster,et al.  Vigilance decrement during the on-the-road driving tests: the importance of time-on-task in psychopharmacological research. , 2013, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[18]  F. Fuchs,et al.  The effect of antihypertensive agents on sleep apnea: protocol for a randomized controlled trial , 2014, Trials.

[19]  M Gregory,et al.  Effects of Noise and of Signal Rate upon Vigilance Analysed by Means of Decision Theory , 1965, Human factors.

[20]  Roel Bosker,et al.  Multilevel analysis : an introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling , 1999 .

[21]  N. Mackworth.  The Breakdown of Vigilance during Prolonged Visual Search 1 , 1948 .

[22]  Juan Merlo,et al.  Appropriate assessment of neighborhood effects on individual health: integrating random and fixed effects in multilevel logistic regression. , 2005, American journal of epidemiology.

[23]  Consumer Protection,et al.  European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth edition--summary document. , 2008, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[24]  Paul Taylor,et al.  Computer aids and human second reading as interventions in screening mammography: two systematic reviews to compare effects on cancer detection and recall rate. , 2008, European journal of cancer.

[25]  E. Burnside,et al.  The use of batch reading to improve the performance of screening mammography. , 2005, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[26]  S. Taylor-Phillips,et al.  Should previous mammograms be digitised in the transition to digital mammography? , 2009, European Radiology.