Interval breast cancers in screening: The effect of mammography review method on classification

Interval breast cancers in screening: The effect of mammography review method on classification
Stefano Ciatto, Sandra Catarzi, Maria Perla Lamberini, Gabriella Risso, Gianni Saguatti, Teresa Abbattista, Francesca Martinelli and Nehmat Houssami
The Breast 16, Issue 6, December 2007, Pages 646-652

More ‘informed’ review is more likely to yield an IC classification as MS or SE. Due to expected variability, review methods need standardisation to improve screening quality. Our data support blinded review of IC in mammography screening.

Reassurance following breast screening recall for female survivors of Hodgkin's lymphoma

Reassurance following breast screening recall for female survivors of Hodgkin's lymphoma
Kate Absolom, Diana Greenfield, Richard Ross, Helena Davies, Barry Hancock and Christine Eiser
The Breast , 16, Issue 6, December 2007, Pages 590-596

After the recall, 64% had learned more about late effects and 76% were reassured about their health. All but one woman intended to attend future screening. Women are keen to take advantage of screening and experience relatively little distress

Mammography: Interobserver variability in breast density assessment

Mammography: Inter-observer variability in breast density assessment
E.A. Ooms, H.M. Zonderland, M.J.C. Eijkemans, M. Kriege, B. Mahdavian Delavary, C.W. Burger and A.C. Ansink
The Breast 16, Issue 6, December 2007, Pages 568-576

In conclusion, overall interobserver agreement in mammographic interpretation of breast density is substantial and therefore, the BI-RADS classification for breast density is useful for standardization in a multicentre study