Radiologists' vs. surgeons' reading performance in non traumatic acute abdomen CTs : P32

Purpose: Emergency room reading performances have been a point of interest in recent studies comparing radiologists to other physician groups. Our objective was to evaluate and compare the reading performances of radiologists and surgeons in an emergency room setting of non-traumatic abdominal CTs. Methods and materials: A total of ten readers representing four groups participated in this study: three senior radiologists and visceral surgeons, respectively, and two junior radiologists and surgeons, respectively. Each observer blindedly evaluated a total of 150 multi-slice acute abdominal CTs. CTs were chosen representing established proportions of acute abdomen pathologies in a Level I trauma centre from 2003 to 2005. Each answer was interpretated as right or wrong regarding pathology location, diagnosis and need for operation. Gold standard was the intraoperative result, and the clinical patient follow-up for non-operated patients. Significance was assumed at a p <.05 level. Results: Senior radiologists had a mean score of 2.38 ± 1.14, junior radiologists a score of 2.34 ± 1.14, whereas senior surgeons scored 2.07 ± 1.30 and junior surgeons 1.62 ± 1.42. No significant difference was found between the two radiologist groups, but results were significantly better for senior surgeons as compared to junior surgeons and better for the two radiologist groups as compared to each of the surgeon groups (all p <.05). Conclusion: Abdominal CT reading in an acute abdomen setting should continue to rely on an evaluation by a radiologist, whether senior or junior. Satisfying reading results can be achieved by senior visceral surgeons, but junior surgeons need more experience for a good reading performance.

Outcome and Experience from the Swiss Mammography Screening Pilot Programmes

BACKGROUND:The Swiss breast cancer screening pilot programme was conducted in 3 districts of theFrench-speaking canton of Vaud (ca. 300,000 resident women) between October 1993 and January 1999.Women aged 50 to 69 were invited by mail every 2 years for a free of charge screening mammography (doubleview, multiple reading). This first ever-organised cancer screening programme in Switzerland showed thefeasibility and acceptability of this kind of public health intervention in the liberal Swiss healthcare system, whichwas the main objective of the pilot programme. This mammographic screening programme was extended to thewhole canton in 1999, and contributed to the implementation of similar programmes in 2 neighbouring cantons. OBJECTIVE:To appraise the use, the quality and the effectiveness of the Swiss screening pilot programme. METHODS:About 15,000 women (aged 50-69) were enrolled. Logistic regression analyses were performedseparately to identify determinants of initial and subsequent attendance. Standard indicators of quality,effectiveness and impact of the programme were assessed and compared with European recommendations. Tothis intent, linkage with data from the Vaud Cancer Registry was performed. RESULTS:About half the target population was screened at least once during the pilot trial. Participation washigher among Swiss than foreigners, among widowed or married women than among single, divorced or separatedones. Attendance also increased with age and decreasing distance between residence and the dedicatedscreening centre. Apart from Swiss citizenship, socio-demographic factors were not associated with reattendance.Intensity of prior recruitment, outcome of previous screening test (positive vs. negative) and indicators of women'shealth behaviour (time of last mammography prior to initial screen, smoking status) were the main determinants ofreattendance. Programme performance and quality indicators were, overall, in line with European Guidelines. Theywere overall more favourable among 60-69 than 50-59 year-olds and improved over time. CONCLUSION:The objectives of the pilot programme were met. Even if participation should increase in order toreach European standards, performance indicators overall met quality requirements. Ways to improve screeninguse, quality and effectiveness were devised and taken into account for the generalisation of the programme.