Literature DB >> 17929256

Analysis of patients with false negative mammography and symptomatic breast carcinoma.

Ian G Murphy1, Mary F Dillon, Ann O' Doherty, Enda W McDermott, Gabrielle Kelly, Niall O'Higgins, Arnold D K Hill.   

Abstract

AIM: False-negative mammograms may result in a delay in breast carcinoma diagnosis and have important implications for patient care. In this study, the characteristics of symptomatic patients with false-negative mammograms were analysed.
METHODS: Patients with symptomatic breast carcinoma were identified over a 10-year period (1994-2004). One hundred and twenty-four patients had false-negative preoperative mammograms and 1241 patients had abnormal preoperative mammograms. Clinical presentation, diagnostic methods and pathology were analysed. False-negative mammograms were reviewed by a specialist breast radiologist.
RESULTS: Following retrospective review, 42% of false-negative mammograms were re-categorised as suspicious. The most commonly misinterpreted lesion was architectural distortion/asymmetrical density. Adjuvant ultrasound, where performed (n = 27), raised the level of suspicion in 93% of cases. Patients with false-negative mammograms were more likely to be younger (P < 0.0001), present with nipple discharge (P = 0.002) and have smaller tumours (P < 0.0001). Their tumours were more frequently located outside the upper outer quadrant (P = 0.002). False-negative mammography led to a delay in diagnosis of >2 months in 12 patients.
CONCLUSION: Symptomatic patients with false-negative mammograms often demonstrate definite abnormalities on imaging, the most common of which is architectural distortion/asymmetrical density. Those at particular risk were younger patients, those with nipple discharge, and patients with lesions located outside the upper outer quadrant.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17929256     DOI: 10.1002/jso.20801

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Surg Oncol        ISSN: 0022-4790            Impact factor:   3.454


  11 in total

Review 1.  Advances in Clinical Oncology Research on 99mTc-3PRGD2 SPECT Imaging.

Authors:  Liming Xiao; Jun Xin
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-05-31       Impact factor: 5.738

2.  Differentiation of benign and malignant breast tumors by in-vivo three-dimensional parallel-plate diffuse optical tomography.

Authors:  Regine Choe; Soren D Konecky; Alper Corlu; Kijoon Lee; Turgut Durduran; David R Busch; Saurav Pathak; Brian J Czerniecki; Julia Tchou; Douglas L Fraker; Angela Demichele; Britton Chance; Simon R Arridge; Martin Schweiger; Joseph P Culver; Mitchell D Schnall; Mary E Putt; Mark A Rosen; Arjun G Yodh
Journal:  J Biomed Opt       Date:  2009 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 3.170

3.  Breast tomosynthesis in clinical practice: initial results.

Authors:  Hendrik J Teertstra; Claudette E Loo; Maurice A A J van den Bosch; Harm van Tinteren; Emiel J T Rutgers; Sara H Muller; Kenneth G A Gilhuijs
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2009-08-06       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 4.  MicroRNA-21 in breast cancer: diagnostic and prognostic potential.

Authors:  J Chen; X Wang
Journal:  Clin Transl Oncol       Date:  2013-11-19       Impact factor: 3.405

Review 5.  Ultra-Wideband Antennas for Biomedical Imaging Applications: A Survey.

Authors:  Umair Rafique; Stefano Pisa; Renato Cicchetti; Orlandino Testa; Marta Cavagnaro
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2022-04-22       Impact factor: 3.576

6.  The Values of Combined and Sub-Stratified Imaging Scores with Ultrasonography and Mammography in Breast Cancer Subtypes.

Authors:  Tsun-Hou Chang; Hsian-He Hsu; Yu-Ching Chou; Jyh-Cherng Yu; Giu-Cheng Hsu; Guo-Shu Huang; Guo-Shiou Liao
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-12-21       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Breast disease in the pregnant and lactating patient: radiological-pathological correlation.

Authors:  Surekha Joshi; Vandana Dialani; Jonathan Marotti; Tejas S Mehta; Priscilla J Slanetz
Journal:  Insights Imaging       Date:  2013-07-25

8.  99mTc-3P4-RGD2 scintimammography in the assessment of breast lesions: comparative study with 99mTc-MIBI.

Authors:  Qingjie Ma; Bin Chen; Shi Gao; Tiefeng Ji; Qiang Wen; Yan Song; Lei Zhu; Zheli Xu; Lin Liu
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-09-24       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  99mTc-HYNIC-(tricine/EDDA)-FROP peptide for MCF-7 breast tumor targeting and imaging.

Authors:  Sajjad Ahmadpour; Zohreh Noaparast; Seyed Mohammad Abedi; Seyed Jalal Hosseinimehr
Journal:  J Biomed Sci       Date:  2018-02-19       Impact factor: 8.410

10.  Analysis of Participant Factors That Affect the Diagnostic Performance of Screening Mammography: A Report of the Alliance for Breast Cancer Screening in Korea.

Authors:  Young Joong Kim; Eun Hye Lee; Jae Kwan Jun; Dong-Rock Shin; Young Mi Park; Hye-Won Kim; Youme Kim; Keum Won Kim; Hyo Soon Lim; Jeong Seon Park; Hye Jung Kim; Hye-Mi Jo
Journal:  Korean J Radiol       Date:  2017-05-19       Impact factor: 3.500

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.