Literature DB >> 24471386

Breast cancer detected with screening US: reasons for nondetection at mammography.

Min Sun Bae1, Woo Kyung Moon, Jung Min Chang, Hye Ryoung Koo, Won Hwa Kim, Nariya Cho, Ann Yi, Bo La Yun, Su Hyun Lee, Mi Young Kim, Eun Bi Ryu, Mirinae Seo.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To retrospectively review the mammograms of women with breast cancers detected at screening ultrasonography (US) to determine the reasons for nondetection at mammography.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study received institutional review board approval, and informed consent was waived. Between 2003 and 2011, a retrospective database review revealed 335 US-depicted cancers in 329 women (median age, 47 years; age range, 29-69 years) with Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System breast density type 2-4. Five blinded radiologists independently reviewed the mammograms to determine whether the findings on negative mammograms should be recalled. Three unblinded radiologists re-reviewed the mammograms to determine the reasons for nondetection by using the reference location of the cancer on mammograms obtained after US-guided wire localization or breast magnetic resonance imaging. The number of cancers recalled by the blinded radiologists were compared with the reasons for nondetection determined by the unblinded radiologists.
RESULTS: Of the 335 US-depicted cancers, 63 (19%) were recalled by three or more of the five blinded radiologists, and 272 (81%) showed no mammographic findings that required immediate action. In the unblinded repeat review, 263 (78%) cancers were obscured by overlapping dense breast tissue, and nine (3%) were not included at mammography owing to difficult anatomic location or poor positioning. Sixty-three (19%) cancers were considered interpretive errors. Of these, 52 (82%) were seen as subtle findings (46 asymmetries, six calcifications) and 11 (18%) were evident (six focal asymmetries, one distortion, four calcifications).
CONCLUSION: Most breast cancers (81%) detected at screening US were not seen at mammography, even in retrospect. In addition, 19% had subtle or evident findings missed at mammography. ©RSNA, 2013.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24471386     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.13130724

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  27 in total

1.  [Breast cancer detection by ultrasound screening in dense breast tissue].

Authors:  Evelyn Wenkel
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2014-11       Impact factor: 3.621

Review 2.  Breast cancer screening in the era of density notification legislation: summary of 2014 Massachusetts experience and suggestion of an evidence-based management algorithm by multi-disciplinary expert panel.

Authors:  Phoebe E Freer; Priscilla J Slanetz; Jennifer S Haas; Nadine M Tung; Kevin S Hughes; Katrina Armstrong; A Alan Semine; Susan L Troyan; Robyn L Birdwell
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2015-08-20       Impact factor: 4.872

3.  The performance of 3D ABUS versus HHUS in the visualisation and BI-RADS characterisation of breast lesions in a large cohort of 1,886 women.

Authors:  Athina Vourtsis; Aspasia Kachulis
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2017-08-21       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 4.  A review of mammographic positioning image quality criteria for the craniocaudal projection.

Authors:  Rhonda-Joy I Sweeney; Sarah J Lewis; Peter Hogg; Mark F McEntee
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2017-12-05       Impact factor: 3.039

5.  Breast-density assessment with hand-held ultrasound: A novel biomarker to assess breast cancer risk and to tailor screening?

Authors:  Sergio J Sanabria; Orcun Goksel; Katharina Martini; Serafino Forte; Thomas Frauenfelder; Rahel A Kubik-Huch; Marga B Rominger
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-03-19       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  Spontaneous regression of a clinically-advanced histologically low-grade follicular lymphoma involving the breast: case report and review of the literature.

Authors:  Yasunobu Sekiguchi; Asami Shimada; Hidenori Imai; Mutsumi Wakabayashi; Keiji Sugimoto; Noriko Nakamura; Tomohiro Sawada; Norio Komatsu; Masaaki Noguchi
Journal:  Indian J Hematol Blood Transfus       Date:  2014-04-16       Impact factor: 0.900

7.  Current Status of Supplemental Screening in Dense Breasts.

Authors:  Wendie A Berg
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2016-03-09       Impact factor: 44.544

8.  Bahcesehir long-term population-based screening compared to National Breast Cancer Registry Data: effectiveness of screening in an emerging country.

Authors:  Sibel Ozkan Gurdal; Ayse Nilufer Ozaydın; Erkin Aribal; Beyza Ozcinar; Neslihan Cabioglu; Cennet Sahin; Vahit Ozmen
Journal:  Diagn Interv Radiol       Date:  2021-03       Impact factor: 2.630

Review 9.  Breast density implications and supplemental screening.

Authors:  Athina Vourtsis; Wendie A Berg
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-09-25       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 10.  Update on new technologies in digital mammography.

Authors:  Stephanie K Patterson; Marilyn A Roubidoux
Journal:  Int J Womens Health       Date:  2014-08-14
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.