<?xml version='1.0'?>
<!DOCTYPE art SYSTEM 'http://www.biomedcentral.com/xml/article.dtd'>
<art>
   <ui>bcr830</ui>
   <ji>BCJ</ji>
   <fm>
      <dochead>Oral presentation</dochead>
      <bibl>
         <title>
            <p>A 3-year audit of radiographer screen film reading</p>
         </title>
         <aug>
            <au id="A1">
               <snm>Hubbard</snm>
               <fnm>AE</fnm>
               <insr iid="I1"/>
               <insr iid="I2"/>
            </au>
            <au id="A2">
               <snm>Lawson</snm>
               <fnm>SL</fnm>
               <insr iid="I1"/>
               <insr iid="I2"/>
            </au>
            <au id="A3">
               <snm>Duthie</snm>
               <fnm>SC</fnm>
               <insr iid="I1"/>
               <insr iid="I2"/>
            </au>
            <au id="A4">
               <snm>Tetlow</snm>
               <fnm>RL</fnm>
               <insr iid="I1"/>
               <insr iid="I2"/>
            </au>
            <au id="A5">
               <snm>Bradley</snm>
               <fnm>C</fnm>
               <insr iid="I1"/>
               <insr iid="I2"/>
            </au>
            <au id="A6">
               <snm>Dean</snm>
               <fnm>E</fnm>
               <insr iid="I1"/>
               <insr iid="I2"/>
            </au>
         </aug>
         <insg>
            <ins id="I1">
               <p>Hull and East Yorkshire NHS Trust, Hull, UK</p>
            </ins>
            <ins id="I2">
               <p>Humberside BreastScreening Programme, Hull, UK</p>
            </ins>
         </insg>
         <source>Breast Cancer Res</source>
         <supplement>
            <title>
               <p>Symposium Mammographicum 2004</p>
            </title>
            <note>Meeting abstracts</note>
         </supplement>
         <conference>
            <title>
               <p>Symposium Mammographicum 2004</p>
            </title>
            <location>Edinburgh, UK</location>
            <date-range>19th &#8211; 20th July 2004</date-range>
         </conference>
         <issn>1465-5411</issn>
         <pubdate>2004</pubdate>
         <volume>6</volume>
         <issue>Suppl 1</issue>
         <fpage>P11</fpage>
         <xrefbib>
            <pubid idtype="doi">10.1186/bcr830</pubid>
         </xrefbib>
      </bibl>
      <history>
         <pub>
            <date>
               <day>14</day>
               <month>7</month>
               <year>2004</year>
            </date>
         </pub>
      </history>
   </fm>
   <bdy>
      <sec>
         <st>
            <p/>
         </st>
         <p>A team of five radiographers assists with film reading in our large combined screening and symptomatic breast unit. The first were trained in 1999, and now have 5 years experience. For the last 3 years their screen reading performance has been intensively audited.</p>
         <p>Film reading numbers have ranged from 4.8 to 11,000/year. Cancer detection rates average 6/1000, with the best radiographer achieving 7/1000. Recall rates are kept low by consensus review of all recalls, less than 5%.</p>
         <p>Film reading performance in real life does reflect the 'PERFORMS' score.</p>
         <p>Lobular cancers are more likely to be missed by new film readers and are disproportionately over-represented in the 'minority report' cancers detected.</p>
         <p>In conclusion, radiographers perform as well as average breast-screening radiologists after 3 years supervised experience.</p>
      </sec>
   </bdy>
</art>
