Literature DB >> 19046632

Delayed diagnosis of breast cancer in women recalled for suspicious screening mammography.

Lucien E M Duijm1, Johanna H Groenewoud, Harry J de Koning, Jan Willem Coebergh, Mike van Beek, Marianne J H H Hooijen, Lonneke V van de Poll-Franse.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine the frequency, pathology and causes of a delay in cancer diagnosis in women recalled for suspicious screening mammography.
METHODS: We included all 290,943 screening mammograms of women aged 50-75 years, who underwent biennial screening mammography between 1st January 1995 and 1st January 2006. During a follow-up period of at least 2 years, clinical data, breast imaging reports, biopsy results and breast surgery reports were collected of all 3513 women with a positive screening result. Tumour stages of breast cancers with a diagnostic delay (defined as breast cancer confirmation more than 3 months following a positive mammography screen) were compared with those of cancers diagnosed within 3 months following referral and with interval cancers.
RESULTS: A diagnostic delay occurred in 97 (6.5%) of 1503 screen-detected cancers. These 97 false-negative assessments comprised significantly more ductal cancers in situ (26.8%) than did cancers with an adequate assessment after recall (15.5%, p=0.004) or interval cancers (3.7%, p<0.001). Compared with interval cancers, cancers with a false-negative assessment had a more favourable tumour size (T1a-c, 87.3% versus T1a-c, 46.4%; p<0.001) and showed significantly fewer cases with axillary lymph node metastases (22.5% versus 48.2%; p<0.001). Between hospitals having performed the workup of at least 500 referred women each, the percentage of women with a false-negative assessment varied from 5.0% to 9.1% (p=0.03). In these hospitals, improper classification of lesions at diagnostic mammography comprised 64.4% of false-negative assessments.
CONCLUSION: We found that 6.5% of recalled women experienced a delay in breast cancer diagnosis, with significant performance variations between hospitals.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 19046632     DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.020

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Cancer        ISSN: 0959-8049            Impact factor:   9.162


  12 in total

1.  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

2.  Variations in screening outcome among pairs of screening radiologists at non-blinded double reading of screening mammograms: a population-based study.

Authors:  E G Klompenhouwer; L E M Duijm; A C Voogd; G J den Heeten; J Nederend; F H Jansen; M J M Broeders
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2014-02-06       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 3.  Challenges to the early diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer in developing countries.

Authors:  Karla Unger-Saldaña
Journal:  World J Clin Oncol       Date:  2014-08-10

4.  Value of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis versus Additional Views for the Assessment of Screen-Detected Abnormalities - a First Analysis.

Authors:  Sylvia Heywang-Köbrunner; Alexander Jaensch; Astrid Hacker; Sabina Wulz-Horber; Thomas Mertelmeier; Dieter Hölzel
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2017-04-20       Impact factor: 2.860

5.  Characteristics and screening outcome of women referred twice at screening mammography.

Authors:  Wikke Setz-Pels; Lucien E M Duijm; Marieke W J Louwman; Rudi M H Roumen; Frits H Jansen; Adri C Voogd
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2012-06-13       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  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

7.  Increased Cancer Detection Rate and Variations in the Recall Rate Resulting from Implementation of 3D Digital Breast Tomosynthesis into a Population-based Screening Program.

Authors:  Richard E Sharpe; Shambavi Venkataraman; Jordana Phillips; Vandana Dialani; Valerie J Fein-Zachary; Seema Prakash; Priscilla J Slanetz; Tejas S Mehta
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2015-10-09       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Trends in incidence and detection of advanced breast cancer at biennial screening mammography in The Netherlands: a population based study.

Authors:  Joost Nederend; Lucien Em Duijm; Adri C Voogd; Johanna H Groenewoud; Frits H Jansen; Marieke Wj Louwman
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2012-01-09       Impact factor: 6.466

9.  Population-based mammography screening below age 50: balancing radiation-induced vs prevented breast cancer deaths.

Authors:  R de Gelder; G Draisma; E A M Heijnsdijk; H J de Koning
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2011-03-01       Impact factor: 7.640

10.  Trends in breast biopsies for abnormalities detected at screening mammography: a population-based study in the Netherlands.

Authors:  V van Breest Smallenburg; J Nederend; A C Voogd; J W W Coebergh; M van Beek; F H Jansen; W J Louwman; L E M Duijm
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2013-05-21       Impact factor: 7.640

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.