Literature DB >> 18785026

Mammographic features and histopathological findings of interval breast cancers.

S Hofvind1, B Geller, P Skaane.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Interval cancers are considered a shortcoming in screening mammography due to less favorable prognostic tumor characteristics compared to screening-detected cancers and consequently a lower chance of survival from the disease.
PURPOSE: To describe the mammographic features and prognostic histopathological tumor characteristics of interval breast cancers.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 231 interval breast cancer cases diagnosed in prevalently screened women aged 50-69 years old were examined. Thirty-five percent of the cases were retrospectively classified as missed cancers, 23% as minimal sign, and 42% as true negative (including occult cancers) in a definitive classification performed by six experienced breast radiologists. The retrospective classification described the mammographic features of the baseline screening mammograms in missed and minimal-sign interval cancers, while histopathological reports were used to describe the tumor characteristics in all the subgroups of interval cancers.
RESULTS: Fifty percent of the missed and minimal-sign interval cancers combined presented poorly defined mass or asymmetric density, and 26% calcifications with or without associated density or mass at baseline screening. Twenty-seven percent of invasive tumors were <15 mm for missed and 47% for true interval cancers (P<0.001). Lymph node involvement was more common in missed (49%) compared with the true cases (33%, P<0.05).
CONCLUSION: Missed interval cancers have less prognostically favorable histopathological tumor characteristics compared with true interval cancers. Improving the radiologist's perception and interpretation by establishing systematic collection of features and implementation of organized reviews may decrease the number of interval cancers in a screening program.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18785026      PMCID: PMC2818729          DOI: 10.1080/02841850802403730

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Radiol        ISSN: 0284-1851            Impact factor:   1.990


  28 in total

Review 1.  CAD for mammography: the technique, results, current role and further developments.

Authors:  Ansgar Malich; Dorothee R Fischer; Joachim Böttcher
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2006-01-17       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Ascertainment and evaluation of interval cancers in population-based mammography screening programmes: a collaborative study in four European centres.

Authors:  Sven Törnberg; Mary Codd; Vitor Rodrigues; Nereo Segnan; Antonio Ponti
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 2.136

3.  Methodological issues in international comparison of interval breast cancers.

Authors:  Jean-Luc Bulliard; Peter Sasieni; Carrie Klabunde; Jean-Pierre De Landtsheer; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Jacques Fracheboud
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2006-09-01       Impact factor: 7.396

4.  Tumour characteristics and survival in patients with invasive interval breast cancer classified according to mammographic findings at the latest screening: a comparison of true interval and missed interval cancers.

Authors:  B Vitak; K E Olsen; J C Månson; L G Arnesson; O Stål
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  Influence of review design on percentages of missed interval breast cancers: retrospective study of interval cancers in a population-based screening program.

Authors:  Solveig Hofvind; Per Skaane; Bedrich Vitak; Hege Wang; Steinar Thoresen; Liv Eriksen; Hilde Bjørndal; Audun Braaten; Nils Bjurstam
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Two models for radiological reviewing of interval cancers.

Authors:  K Moberg; H Grundström; S Törnberg; H Lundquist; G Svane; L Havervall; C Muren
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 2.136

7.  Role of detection method in predicting breast cancer survival: analysis of randomized screening trials.

Authors:  Yu Shen; Ying Yang; Lurdes Y T Inoue; Mark F Munsell; Anthony B Miller; Donald A Berry
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2005-08-17       Impact factor: 13.506

8.  Histopathology and growth rate of interval breast carcinoma. Characterization of different subgroups.

Authors:  C T Brekelmans; J M van Gorp; P H Peeters; H J Collette
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1996-09-15       Impact factor: 6.860

9.  Analysis of cancers missed at screening mammography.

Authors:  R E Bird; T W Wallace; B C Yankaskas
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1992-09       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Radiological findings of screen-detected cancers in a multi-centre randomized, controlled trial of mammographic screening in women from age 40 to 48 years.

Authors:  A J Evans; E Kutt; C Record; M Waller; S Moss
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 2.350

View more
  14 in total

Review 1.  Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Concepts and Clinical Practice.

Authors:  Alice Chong; Susan P Weinstein; Elizabeth S McDonald; Emily F Conant
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2019-05-14       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Breast Cancer Characteristics Associated With Digital Versus Film-Screen Mammography for Screen-Detected and Interval Cancers.

Authors:  Louise M Henderson; Diana L Miglioretti; Karla Kerlikowske; Karen J Wernli; Brian L Sprague; Constance D Lehman
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 3.959

3.  Advantages and Disadvantages of Mammography Screening.

Authors:  Sylvia H Heywang-Köbrunner; Astrid Hacker; Stefan Sedlacek
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2011-05-27       Impact factor: 2.860

4.  Screening outcome in women repeatedly recalled for the same mammographic abnormality before, during and after the transition from screen-film to full-field digital screening mammography.

Authors:  Rob van Bommel; Adri C Voogd; Marieke W Louwman; Luc J Strobbe; Dick Venderink; Lucien E M Duijm
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2016-05-14       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  [Limits of mammography screening: current controversies and perspectives].

Authors:  K Hellerhoff
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 0.635

Review 6.  Strategies to Increase Cancer Detection: Review of True-Positive and False-Negative Results at Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Screening.

Authors:  Katrina E Korhonen; Susan P Weinstein; Elizabeth S McDonald; Emily F Conant
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  2016-10-07       Impact factor: 5.333

7.  Prognosis in women with interval breast cancer: population based observational cohort study.

Authors:  Mette Kalager; Rulla M Tamimi; Michael Bretthauer; Hans-Olov Adami
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2012-11-16

8.  Tumor phenotype and breast density in distinct categories of interval cancer: results of population-based mammography screening in Spain.

Authors:  Laia Domingo; Dolores Salas; Raquel Zubizarreta; Marisa Baré; Garbiñe Sarriugarte; Teresa Barata; Josefa Ibáñez; Jordi Blanch; Montserrat Puig-Vives; Ana Fernández; Xavier Castells; Maria Sala
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2014-01-10       Impact factor: 6.466

9.  Area and volumetric density estimation in processed full-field digital mammograms for risk assessment of breast cancer.

Authors:  Abbas Cheddad; Kamila Czene; Mikael Eriksson; Jingmei Li; Douglas Easton; Per Hall; Keith Humphreys
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-10-20       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  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
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.