Mark Knox1, Angela O'Brien2, Endre Szabó3, Clare S Smith4, Helen M Fenlon5, Michelle M McNicholas6, Fidelma L Flanagan7. 1. BreastCheck (The Irish National Breast Screening Program) and the Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Eccles St, Dublin 7, Ireland. Electronic address: marktknox@gmail.com. 2. BreastCheck (The Irish National Breast Screening Program) and the Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Eccles St, Dublin 7, Ireland. Electronic address: angelaobrien@doctors.org.uk. 3. BreastCheck (The Irish National Breast Screening Program) and the Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Eccles St, Dublin 7, Ireland. Electronic address: endrebacsi@freemail.hu. 4. BreastCheck (The Irish National Breast Screening Program) and the Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Eccles St, Dublin 7, Ireland. Electronic address: csmith@mater.ie. 5. BreastCheck (The Irish National Breast Screening Program) and the Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Eccles St, Dublin 7, Ireland. Electronic address: helen.fenlon@cancerscreening.ie. 6. BreastCheck (The Irish National Breast Screening Program) and the Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Eccles St, Dublin 7, Ireland. Electronic address: michelle.mcnicholas@cancerscreening.ie. 7. BreastCheck (The Irish National Breast Screening Program) and the Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Eccles St, Dublin 7, Ireland. Electronic address: fidelma.flanagan@cancerscreening.ie.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Full field digital mammography (FFDM) is increasingly replacing screen film mammography (SFM) in breast screening programs. Interval breast cancers are an issue in all screening programs and the purpose of our study is to assess the impact of FFDM on the classification of interval breast cancers at independent blind review and to compare the mammographic features of interval cancers at FFDM and SFM. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study included 138 cases of interval breast cancer, 76 following an FFDM screening examination and 62 following screening with SFM. The prior screening mammogram was assessed by each of five consultant breast radiologists who were blinded to the site of subsequent cancer. Subsequent review of the diagnostic mammogram was performed and cases were classified as missed, minimal signs, occult or true interval. Mammographic features of the interval cancer at diagnosis and any abnormality identified on the prior screening mammogram were recorded. RESULTS: The percentages of cancers classified as missed at FFDM and SFM did not differ significantly, 10.5% (8 of 76) at FFDM and 8.1% (5 of 62) at SFM (p=.77). There were significantly less interval cancers presenting as microcalcifications (alone or in association with another abnormality) following screening with FFDM, 16% (12 of 76) than following a SFM examination, 32% (20 of 62) (p=.02). CONCLUSION: Interval breast cancers continue to pose a problem at FFDM. The switch to FFDM has changed the mammographic presentation of interval breast cancer, with less interval cancers presenting in association with microcalcifications.
OBJECTIVE: Full field digital mammography (FFDM) is increasingly replacing screen film mammography (SFM) in breast screening programs. Interval breast cancers are an issue in all screening programs and the purpose of our study is to assess the impact of FFDM on the classification of interval breast cancers at independent blind review and to compare the mammographic features of interval cancers at FFDM and SFM. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study included 138 cases of interval breast cancer, 76 following an FFDM screening examination and 62 following screening with SFM. The prior screening mammogram was assessed by each of five consultant breast radiologists who were blinded to the site of subsequent cancer. Subsequent review of the diagnostic mammogram was performed and cases were classified as missed, minimal signs, occult or true interval. Mammographic features of the interval cancer at diagnosis and any abnormality identified on the prior screening mammogram were recorded. RESULTS: The percentages of cancers classified as missed at FFDM and SFM did not differ significantly, 10.5% (8 of 76) at FFDM and 8.1% (5 of 62) at SFM (p=.77). There were significantly less interval cancers presenting as microcalcifications (alone or in association with another abnormality) following screening with FFDM, 16% (12 of 76) than following a SFM examination, 32% (20 of 62) (p=.02). CONCLUSION:Interval breast cancers continue to pose a problem at FFDM. The switch to FFDM has changed the mammographic presentation of interval breast cancer, with less interval cancers presenting in association with microcalcifications.
Authors: Ahmed K Abdullah; Judith Kelly; John D Thompson; Claire E Mercer; Rob Aspin; Peter Hogg Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2017-06-16 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: J J Mordang; A Gubern-Mérida; A Bria; F Tortorella; R M Mann; M J M Broeders; G J den Heeten; N Karssemeijer Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2017-10-17 Impact factor: 4.872