Literature DB >> 1632342

Interval carcinomas in the Malmö Mammographic Screening Trial: radiographic appearance and prognostic considerations.

D M Ikeda1, I Andersson, C Wattsgård, L Janzon, F Linell.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Interval carcinoma is the term used to describe malignant breast tumors that are detected in the intervals between mammographic screenings. These tumors are important because they contribute significantly to breast cancer mortality in the screened population.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two radiologists retrospectively reviewed the mammograms of the 96 interval carcinomas (17% of all malignant neoplasms in the screened group) that were detected during the 10-year Malmö Mammographic Screening Trial in Malmö, Sweden (average time between screenings, 21 months), including one sarcoma, 75 invasive carcinomas, and 20 noninvasive carcinomas. We recorded the interval between screening and detection, and noted the tumor's appearance on the prior screening mammogram and at the time of diagnosis; these data were correlated with histologic tumor type and the patients' mortality. The doubling time for tumor volume of the invasive carcinomas was estimated.
RESULTS: Excluding the sarcoma, 72 carcinomas (75%) were detected within 18 months of screening. Retrospective review of the available preceding screening mammograms (94 cases) indicated that 10 tumors were missed (observer's error), 63 studies showed no tumor (true interval carcinomas), and 21 studies showed subtle signs of malignancy, mostly nonspecific densities or asymmetries (unrecognized sign). Of 66 invasive carcinomas in which doubling times for tumor volume could be calculated, 27 (41%) had doubling times of less than 100 days. At the end of the study, 20 of the 96 patients had died of breast cancer.
CONCLUSION: Interval carcinomas in this series were dominated by comedo, medullary, and mucinous carcinomas that often had a nonspecific appearance (when present) on prior screening mammograms. The interval carcinomas also contained a subset of rapidly growing tumors with a grave prognosis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1632342     DOI: 10.2214/ajr.159.2.1632342

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  16 in total

Review 1.  Integration of breast imaging into cancer management.

Authors:  L J Esserman; D Wolverton; N Hylton
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 5.075

2.  Spectrum of diagnostic errors in radiology.

Authors:  Antonio Pinto; Luca Brunese
Journal:  World J Radiol       Date:  2010-10-28

3.  Bias in estimating accuracy of a binary screening test with differential disease verification.

Authors:  Todd A Alonzo; John T Brinton; Brandy M Ringham; Deborah H Glueck
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2011-04-15       Impact factor: 2.373

4.  Calculating appropriate target cancer detection rates and expected interval cancer rates for the UK NHS Breast Screening Programme. Interval Cancer Working Group.

Authors:  S Moss; R Blanks
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1998-02       Impact factor: 3.710

5.  Radiologic findings of screen-detected cancers in an organized population-based screening mammography program in Turkey.

Authors:  Arda Kayhan; Erkin Arıbal; Cennet Şahin; Ömür Can Taşçı; Sibel Özkan Gürdal; Enis Öztürk; Hayat Halide Hatipoğlu; Nilüfer Özaydın; Neslihan Cabioğlu; Beyza Özçınar; Vahit Özmen
Journal:  Diagn Interv Radiol       Date:  2016 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.630

6.  Locally advanced breast cancers are more likely to present as Interval Cancers: results from the I-SPY 1 TRIAL (CALGB 150007/150012, ACRIN 6657, InterSPORE Trial).

Authors:  Cheryl Lin; Meredith Becker Buxton; Dan Moore; Helen Krontiras; Lisa Carey; Angela DeMichele; Leslie Montgomery; Debasish Tripathy; Constance Lehman; Minetta Liu; Olufunmilayo Olapade; Christina Yau; Donald Berry; Laura J Esserman
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2011-07-28       Impact factor: 4.872

7.  Racial differences in breast cancer stage at diagnosis in the mammography era.

Authors:  Neal A Chatterjee; Yulei He; Nancy L Keating
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2012-06-14       Impact factor: 9.308

Review 8.  Screening for breast cancer.

Authors:  Joann G Elmore; Katrina Armstrong; Constance D Lehman; Suzanne W Fletcher
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2005-03-09       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of breast cancer visibility and BIRADS classification in a population of cancers with subtle mammographic findings.

Authors:  Ingvar Andersson; Debra M Ikeda; Sophia Zackrisson; Mark Ruschin; Tony Svahn; Pontus Timberg; Anders Tingberg
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2008-07-19       Impact factor: 5.315

10.  Lifetime risks of specific breast cancer subtypes among women in four racial/ethnic groups.

Authors:  Allison W Kurian; Kari Fish; Sarah J Shema; Christina A Clarke
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2010-11-19       Impact factor: 6.466

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.