S Hofvind1, B Geller, P Skaane. 1. Department of Screening-Based Research, Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway. solveig.hofvind@kreftregisteret.no
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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