Dr. Jennifer Anne Cooper Profile

Dr. Jennifer Anne Cooper

at The University of Warwick

SPIE Involvement:

Author

Publications (1)

This will count as one of your downloads.

You will have access to both the presentation and article (if available).

DOWNLOAD NOW

This content is available for download via your institution's subscription. To access this item, please sign in to your personal account.

Email or Username Forgot your username?

Password Forgot your password?

Show

Keep me signed in

No SPIE account? Create an account

Proceedings Article | 4 March 2019 Presentation + Paper

Blinding of the second reader in mammography screening: impact on behaviour and cancer detection

Jennifer Anne Cooper, David Jenkinson, Sian Taylor-Phillips

Proceedings Volume 10952, 109520T (2019) https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2512090

KEYWORDS: Cancer, Mammography, Breast cancer, Breast, Statistical analysis, Data modeling

Read Abstract +

Background: The policy of the NHS Breast Cancer Screening Programme is for each woman’s mammograms to be examined by two separate readers, working independently. In practice, sometimes the second reader (reader 2) can see the decision of the first reader (reader 1). The National Breast Screening Service (NBSS) computer software automatically records whether the second reader can see the decision of the first reader or whether they are ‘blinded’. This study aimed to determine the effect of blinding the second reader on the recall rate and cancer detection rate of reader 2. Methods: Data were from eight screening centers based in the Midlands area in England participating in the 'Changing Case Order to Optimize Patterns of Performance in Screening (CO-OPS)' clinical trial. A three-level Markov Chain Monte Carlo multilevel model was fitted to determine the effect of blinding reader 2 on recall rate and cancer detection. Results: 207,595 women were included in the analysis, of whom 1,796 had cancer detected. Reader 2 was blinded to reader 1’s decisions for 54.5% (113,029/207,595) cases. If reader 2 is blinded, there is a high probability that they are more likely to recall than if they were not blinded for a prevalent case but less likely to recall an incident case. The interaction effects on reader 2’s cancer detection rate were not significant. Conclusion: If the second reader is not blinded to the decision of the first reader, they appear to be influenced by the first reader’s decision suggesting that reading is not independent.

My Library

You currently do not have any folders to save your paper to! Create a new folder below.

Folder Name

Folder Description

View contact details

UPDATE YOUR PROFILE

Is this your profile? Update it now.

Sign into your SPIE.org account

Don’t have a profile and want one?

Create an account on SPIE.org

Access to the requested content is limited to institutions that have purchased or subscribe to SPIE eBooks. You are receiving this notice because your organization may not have SPIE eBooks access.*

*Shibboleth/Open Athens users─please sign in to access your institution's subscriptions.

To obtain this item, you may purchase the complete book in print or electronic format on SPIE.org.

ORGANIZATIONAL
Sign in with credentials provided by your organization.

Organizational Username

Organizational Password

Show/Hide Password

INSTITUTIONAL
Select your institution to access the SPIE Digital Library.

SELECT YOUR INSTITUTION

PERSONAL
Sign in with your SPIE account to access your personal subscriptions or to use specific features such as save to my library, sign up for alerts, save searches, etc.

PERSONAL SIGN IN

No SPIE Account? Create one

PURCHASE THIS CONTENT

SUBSCRIBE TO DIGITAL LIBRARY

50 downloads per 1-year subscription

Members: $195

Non-members: $335 ADD TO CART

25 downloads per 1 - year subscription

Members: $145

Non-members: $250 ADD TO CART

PURCHASE SINGLE ARTICLE

Includes PDF, HTML & Video, when available

Members:

Non-members: ADD TO CART

Keywords/Phrases

Search In:

Publication Years