Literature DB >> 12563145

Analysis of 172 subtle findings on prior normal mammograms in women with breast cancer detected at follow-up screening.

Debra M Ikeda1, Robyn L Birdwell, Kathryn F O'Shaughnessy, R James Brenner, Edward A Sickles.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To retrospectively review nonspecific findings on prior screening mammograms to determine what features were most often deemed normal or benign despite the development of breast cancer in the same location detected at follow-up screening.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four hundred ninety-three pairs of consecutive mammographic findings were collected from 13 institutions, consisting of initial normal screening findings and a subsequent finding of cancer at screening (mean interval between examinations, 14.6 months). One designated radiologist reviewed each pair of mammograms and determined that 286 findings were judged visible at prior examination in locations where cancer later developed. Five blinded radiologists independently reviewed the prior findings in these 286 cases, identifying 169 mammograms (172 cancers) with findings so subtle that none or only one or two of the five radiologists recommended screening recall. Two unblinded radiologists reviewed the initial and subsequent findings and recorded descriptors and assessments for each finding and subjective factors influencing why, although the lesion was perceptible, it might have been undetected or not recalled.
RESULTS: Of 172 cancers, 129 (75%) were invasive (112 T1 tumors and 17 T2 tumors or higher; median diameter, 10 mm), and 43 (25%) were ductal carcinoma in situ (median size, 10 mm). On the prior mammograms, 80% (137 of 172) of these cancers had subtle nonspecific findings where cancer later developed, and most were assessed as being normal or benign in appearance.
CONCLUSION: There is a subset of cancers that display perceptible but nonspecific mammographic findings that do not warrant recall, as judged by both a majority of blinded radiologists and by unblinded reviewers. We believe failure to act on these nonspecific findings prospectively does not necessarily constitute interpretation below a reasonable standard of care.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12563145     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2262011634

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  10 in total

1.  Computer-assisted mammography feedback program (CAMFP) an electronic tool for continuing medical education.

Authors:  Nicole Urban; Gary M Longton; Andrea D Crowe; Mariann J Drucker; Constance D Lehman; Susan Peacock; Kimberly A Lowe; Steve B Zeliadt; Marcia A Gaul
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 3.173

2.  An investigation into the mammographic appearances of missed breast cancers when recall rates are reduced.

Authors:  Norhashimah Mohd Norsuddin; Claudia Mello-Thoms; Warren Reed; Mary Rickard; Sarah Lewis
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2017-06-16       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  Disclosing harmful mammography errors to patients.

Authors:  Thomas H Gallagher; Andrea J Cook; R James Brenner; Patricia A Carney; Diana L Miglioretti; Berta M Geller; Karla Kerlikowske; Tracy L Onega; Robert D Rosenberg; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Constance D Lehman; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2009-08-25       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Trends in incidence and detection of advanced breast cancer at biennial screening mammography in The Netherlands: a population based study.

Authors:  Joost Nederend; Lucien Em Duijm; Adri C Voogd; Johanna H Groenewoud; Frits H Jansen; Marieke Wj Louwman
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2012-01-09       Impact factor: 6.466

5.  Breast ultrasound diagnostic performance and outcomes for mass lesions using Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System category 0 mammogram.

Authors:  Paulo Almazy Zanello; Andre Felipe Cica Robim; Tatiane Mendes Gonçalves de Oliveira; Jorge Elias Junior; Jurandyr Moreira de Andrade; Carlos Ribeiro Monteiro; Joaquim Moraes Sarmento Filho; Helio Humberto Angotti Carrara; Valdair Francisco Muglia
Journal:  Clinics (Sao Paulo)       Date:  2011       Impact factor: 2.365

6.  Robust breast cancer detection in mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis using an annotation-efficient deep learning approach.

Authors:  Abdul Rahman Diab; Bryan Haslam; Jiye G Kim; William Lotter; Giorgia Grisot; Eric Wu; Kevin Wu; Jorge Onieva Onieva; Yun Boyer; Jerrold L Boxerman; Meiyun Wang; Mack Bandler; Gopal R Vijayaraghavan; A Gregory Sorensen
Journal:  Nat Med       Date:  2021-01-11       Impact factor: 87.241

7.  Screening mammography for second breast cancers in women with history of early-stage breast cancer: factors and causes associated with non-detection.

Authors:  Yoo Kyung Yeom; Eun Young Chae; Hak Hee Kim; Joo Hee Cha; Hee Jung Shin; Woo Jung Choi
Journal:  BMC Med Imaging       Date:  2019-01-05       Impact factor: 1.930

8.  Missed Breast Cancers on MRI in High-Risk Patients: A Retrospective Case-Control Study.

Authors:  Julie Bilocq-Lacoste; Romuald Ferre; Grey Kuling; Anne L Martel; Pascal N Tyrrell; Siying Li; Guan Wang; Belinda Curpen
Journal:  Tomography       Date:  2022-02-02

9.  Features of breast cancer initially assessed as probably benign on ultrasound: A retrospective study.

Authors:  Hye Ji Ryu; Joo Hee Cha; Hak Hee Kim; Hee Jung Shin; Eun Young Chae; Woo Jung Choi
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2022-08-05       Impact factor: 1.817

Review 10.  Obtaining adequate surgical margins in breast-conserving therapy for patients with early-stage breast cancer: current modalities and future directions.

Authors:  Rick G Pleijhuis; Maurits Graafland; Jakob de Vries; Joost Bart; Johannes S de Jong; Gooitzen M van Dam
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2009-07-17       Impact factor: 5.344

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.