Iranian Journal of Radiology

Published by: Kowsar

Performance of Double Reading Mammography in an Iranian Population and Its Effect on Patient Outcome

Maryam Moradi 1 , * , Kobra Ganji 2 , Niloufar Teyfouri 3 and Farzaneh Kolahdoozan 3
Authors Information
1 Department of Radiology, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
2 Atieh Imaging Center, Isfahan, Iran
3 Medical Image and Signal Processing Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
Article information
  • Iranian Journal of Radiology: June 01, 2013, 10 (2); 51-5
  • Published Online: May 20, 2013
  • Article Type: Research ArticleBREAST IMAGING
  • Received: October 29, 2011
  • Revised: September 29, 2012
  • Accepted: October 9, 2012
  • DOI: 10.5812/iranjradiol.11729

To Cite: Moradi M, Ganji K, Teyfouri N, Kolahdoozan F. Performance of Double Reading Mammography in an Iranian Population and Its Effect on Patient Outcome, Iran J Radiol. 2013 ; 10(2):51-5. doi: 10.5812/iranjradiol.11729.

Copyright © 2013, Tehran University of Medical Sciences and Iranian Society of Radiology. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License ( which permits copy and redistribute the material just in noncommercial usages, provided the original work is properly cited.
1. Background
2. Objectives
3. Patients and Methods
4. Results
5. Discussion
  • 1. Harirchi I\nKolahdoozan, et al. Twenty years of breast cancer in Iran: downstaging without a formal screening program. Ann Oncol. 2011; 22(1): 93-7[DOI][PubMed]
  • 2. Mousavi SM\nHarirchi, et al. Screening for breast cancer in Iran: a challenge for health policy makers. Breast J. 2008; 14(6): 605-6[DOI][PubMed]
  • 3. Ciatto S\nAmbrogetti, et al. The role of arbitration of discordant reports at double reading of screening mammograms. J Med Screen. 2005; 12(3): 125-7[DOI][PubMed]
  • 4. Brancato B\nCiatto, et al. [The assessment of the impact of a double reading by expert readers in a mass mammographic study]. Radiol Med. 2000; 100(1-2): 21-3[PubMed]
  • 5. Perry N\nBroeders. European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth edition--summary document. Ann Oncol. 2008; 19(4): 614-22[DOI][PubMed]
  • 6. Williams LJ\nHartswood. Methodological issues in mammography double reading studies. J Med Screen. 1998; 5(4): 202-6[PubMed]
  • 7. Caumo F\nBrunelli. Benefits of double reading of screening mammograms: retrospective study on a consecutive series. Radiol Med. 2011; 116(4): 575-83[DOI][PubMed]
  • 8. Hofvind S\nGeller. Screening-detected breast cancers: discordant independent double reading in a population-based screening program. Radiology. 2009; 253(3): 652-60[DOI][PubMed]
  • 9. Ciatto S\nAmbrogetti, et al. Second reading of screening mammograms increases cancer detection and recall rates. Results in the Florence screening programme. J Med Screen. 2005; 12(2): 103-6[DOI][PubMed]
  • 10. Anderson ED\nMuir. The efficacy of double reading mammograms in breast screening. Clin Radiol. 1994; 49(4): 248-51[PubMed]
  • 11. Kopans DB. Double Reading. Radiol Clin North Am. 2000; 38(4): 719-724
  • 12. Kwek BH\nLau. Non-consensual double reading in the Singapore Breast Screening Project: benefits and limitations. Ann Acad Med Singapore. 2003; 32(4): 438-41[PubMed]
  • 13. Ciatto S\nDel Turco, et al. Independent double reading of screening mammograms. J Med Screen. 1995; 2(2): 99-101[PubMed]
  • 14. Leivo T\nSalminen, et al. Incremental cost-effectiveness of double-reading mammograms. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1999; 54(3): 261-7[PubMed]
  • 15. Dinnes J\nMoss. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of double reading of mammograms in breast cancer screening: findings of a systematic review. Breast. 2001; 10(6): 455-63[DOI][PubMed]
  • 16. Guiti M\r\nAzizian. The diagnostic accuracy of digitized mammography. Iran J Radiol. 2008; 5(2): 71-7
  • 17. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. 2003;
  • 18. D\'Orsi CJ\nNewell. BI-RADS decoded: detailed guidance on potentially confusing issues. Radiol Clin North Am. 2007; 45(5): 751-63[DOI][PubMed]
  • 19. Schell MJ\nYankaskas, et al. Evidence-based target recall rates for screening mammography. Radiology. 2007; 243(3): 681-9[DOI][PubMed]
  • 20. Duijm LE\nGroenewoud. Additional double reading of screening mammograms by radiologic technologists: impact on screening performance parameters. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007; 99(15): 1162-70[DOI][PubMed]
  • 21. Berg WA\nCampassi. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: inter- and intraobserver variability in feature analysis and final assessment. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000; 174(6): 1769-77[DOI][PubMed]
  • 22. Ciatto S\nHoussami, et al. Categorizing breast mammographic density: intra- and interobserver reproducibility of BI-RADS density categories. Breast. 2005; 14(4): 269-75[DOI][PubMed]
  • 23. Ooms EA\nZonderland, et al. Mammography: interobserver variability in breast density assessment. Breast. 2007; 16(6): 568-76[DOI][PubMed]
  • 24. Ciatto S\nAmbrogetti, et al. Computer-aided detection (CAD) of cancers detected on double reading by one reader only. Breast. 2006; 15(4): 528-32[DOI][PubMed]
  • 25. Cornford EJ\nEvans. The pathological and radiological features of screen-detected breast cancers diagnosed following arbitration of discordant double reading opinions. Clin Radiol. 2005; 60(11): 1182-7[DOI][PubMed]
  • 26. Thurfjell EL\nLernevall. Benefit of independent double reading in a population-based mammography screening program. Radiology. 1994; 191(1): 241-4[PubMed]
  • 27. Warren RM\nDuffy. Comparison of single reading with double reading of mammograms, and change in effectiveness with experience. Br J Radiol. 1995; 68(813): 958-62[PubMed]
  • 28. Beam CA\nSullivan. Effect of human variability on independent double reading in screening mammography. Acad Radiol. 1996; 3(11): 891-7[PubMed]
Creative Commons License Except where otherwise noted, this work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 4.0 International License .

Search Relations:



Create Citiation Alert
via Google Reader

Readers' Comments