Literature DB >> 17331828

Radiological and pathological findings of interval cancers in a multi-centre, randomized, controlled trial of mammographic screening in women from age 40-41 years.

A J Evans1, E Kutt, C Record, M Waller, L Bobrow, S Moss.   

Abstract

AIM: The aim of this study was to analyse the radiographic findings of the screening mammograms of women with interval cancer who participated in a multi-centre, randomized, controlled trial of mammographic screening in women from age 40-48 years.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The screening and diagnostic mammograms of 208 women with interval cancers were reviewed. Abnormalities were classified as malignant, subtle and non-specific.
RESULTS: Eighty-seven (42%) of women had true, 66 (32%) occult and 55 (26%) false-negative interval cancers. The features most frequently missed or misinterpreted were granular microcalcification (38%), asymmetric density (27%) and distortion (22%). Thirty-seven percent of abnormal previous screens were classified as malignant, 39% subtle change and 21% as non-specific. Granular calcifications were significantly more common on the diagnostic mammograms of false-negative interval cancers than those of true interval cancers (28 versus 14%, p=0.04). Occult interval cancers were more likely to be <10 mm and <15 mm in invasive pathological size than other interval cancers (p=0.03 and 0.005, respectively). True interval cancers were more likely to be histologically grade 3 than other interval cancers (p=0.04). Women who developed true and false-negative interval cancers had similar background patterns, but women with occult cancers had a higher proportion of dense patterns (p<0.05).
CONCLUSION: Interval cancers in a young screening population have a high proportion of occult lesions that are small and occur in dense background patterns. The proportion of interval cancers that are false negative is similar that seen in older populations and granular microcalcification is the commonest missed mammographic feature.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17331828     DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2006.10.010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Radiol        ISSN: 0009-9260            Impact factor:   2.350


  5 in total

1.  Breast cancer screening panels continue to confuse the facts and inject their own biases.

Authors:  D B Kopans
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 3.677

2.  Commentary ACOG Practice Bulletin July 2017: Breast Cancer Risk Assessment and Screening in Average-Risk Women.

Authors:  Victoria Mango; Yolanda Bryce; Elizabeth Anne Morris; Elisabetta Gianotti; Katja Pinker
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2018-05-24       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  A dose- and time-controllable syngeneic animal model of breast cancer microcalcification.

Authors:  Fangbing Liu; Preeti Misra; Elaine P Lunsford; Joanne T Vannah; Yuxia Liu; Robert E Lenkinski; John V Frangioni
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2009-09-17       Impact factor: 4.872

4.  The epidemiology, radiology and biological characteristics of interval breast cancers in population mammography screening.

Authors:  Nehmat Houssami; Kylie Hunter
Journal:  NPJ Breast Cancer       Date:  2017-04-13

5.  BI-RADS 3-5 microcalcifications can preoperatively predict breast cancer HER2 and Luminal a molecular subtype.

Authors:  DongZhi Cen; Li Xu; Ningna Li; Zhiguang Chen; Lu Wang; Shuqin Zhou; Biao Xu; Chun Ling Liu; Zaiyi Liu; Tingting Luo
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2017-02-21
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.