Literature DB >> 18540960

Can peer review contribute to earlier detection of breast cancer? A quality initiative to learn from false-negative mammograms.

Emily C Siegal1, Elizabeth J Angelakis, Audrey Hartman.   

Abstract

Although Mammography Quality Standards Act requires tracking true positives, tracking false negatives is not required. We describe a peer review process implemented at Lahey Clinic to identify false-negative mammograms. We defined a false-negative mammogram as one which was read as negative within 12 months of a cancer diagnosis, and in which two of three radiologists correctly identified the site of cancer. Reviewing radiologists were blinded to each other and to computer-aided design (CAD), but were aware that somewhere in the mammogram was cancer. 25/64, 983, or 0.038% were classified as misses. The false-negative rate of any one radiologist averaged <0.1% without outliers. Of the false negatives, 60% were in heterogeneously dense tissue, 72% were asymmetries or masses rather than calcifications, and 24% were correctly identified by CAD in two views. We use these data for quality assurance, educational purposes, and to help identify patterns of undetected cancers to aid in earlier and improved detection of breast cancers.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18540960     DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4741.2008.00593.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast J        ISSN: 1075-122X            Impact factor:   2.431


  2 in total

1.  Web-based mammography audit feedback.

Authors:  Berta M Geller; Laura Ichikawa; Diana L Miglioretti; David Eastman
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 3.959

2.  Image analysis in medical imaging: recent advances in selected examples.

Authors:  G Dougherty
Journal:  Biomed Imaging Interv J       Date:  2010-07-01
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.