Literature DB >> 27372707

Analysis of mammographic diagnostic errors in breast clinic.

V Palazzetti1, F Guidi2, L Ottaviani3, G Valeri4, S Baldassarre4, G M Giuseppetti2.   

Abstract

Mammography is the gold standard for detection of early breast cancer and it is still the only diagnostic tool which shows reduction of the mortality from that. Despite that, there is a high chance of false negatives that can lead to diagnostic errors resulting in delays of treatment and worsening of prognosis. The aim of this study is to analyze the rate of false negative in mammography and assess the source of diagnostic errors. Two radiologists have retrospectively evaluated 500 mammograms performed between January 2008 and December 2011 in Breast Imaging Clinic. 250 patients (Group A) had been operated for breast cancer and 250 patients (Group B) were healthy woman submitted to mammography according to the guideline for early detection of breast cancer. In Group A, 138 patients (55.2 %) were true missed cancer, 61 had minimal sign (24.4 %) and 53 were false negative (FN) (20.4 %). The source of errors amongst the FN were in 42 % of cases due to perception, in 15 % to interpretation, in 10 % to subtle/unusual lesion characteristics, in 9 % error for satisfaction of search, in 7 % to inherent limitations of mammography, in 4 % to poor technique and 13 % for inadequate clinical management. The diagnostic errors in breast clinic services are not negligible. The largest number of FN results from perception errors, misinterpretation and inadequate clinical management. These can be related to factors such as inattention, fatigue or lack of experience. To reduce it, it is necessary to have a dedicated multidisciplinary staff and adequate equipment and workloads.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Breast neoplasms; Diagnostic errors; Mammography

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27372707     DOI: 10.1007/s11547-016-0655-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiol Med        ISSN: 0033-8362            Impact factor:   3.469


  20 in total

Review 1.  Digital x-ray tomosynthesis: current state of the art and clinical potential.

Authors:  James T Dobbins; Devon J Godfrey
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2003-10-07       Impact factor: 3.609

2.  Systematic approach to human error in radiology.

Authors:  L Pescarini; I Inches
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 3.469

3.  Interval breast cancers in screening: the effect of mammography review method on classification.

Authors:  Stefano Ciatto; Sandra Catarzi; Maria Perla Lamberini; Gabriella Risso; Gianni Saguatti; Teresa Abbattista; Francesca Martinelli; Nehmat Houssami
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2007-07-10       Impact factor: 4.380

4.  Value of the correct diagnostic pathway through conventional imaging (mammography and ultrasound) in evaluating breast disease.

Authors:  C A Pistolese; T Perretta; E Cossu; F Della Gatta; S Giura; G Simonetti
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 3.469

5.  Clinical digital breast tomosynthesis system: dosimetric characterization.

Authors:  Steve Si Jia Feng; Ioannis Sechopoulos
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2012-02-13       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 6.  Management of women at high risk for breast cancer: new imaging beyond mammography.

Authors:  C K Kuhl; W Kuhn; H Schild
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2005-09-26       Impact factor: 4.380

7.  Breast carcinomas: why are they missed?

Authors:  M Muttarak; S Pojchamarnwiputh; B Chaiwun
Journal:  Singapore Med J       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 1.858

8.  Variability in interpretive performance at screening mammography and radiologists' characteristics associated with accuracy.

Authors:  Joann G Elmore; Sara L Jackson; Linn Abraham; Diana L Miglioretti; Patricia A Carney; Berta M Geller; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Karla Kerlikowske; Tracy Onega; Robert D Rosenberg; Edward A Sickles; Diana S M Buist
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2009-10-28       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 9.  The false-negative mammogram.

Authors:  P T Huynh; A M Jarolimek; S Daye
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  1998 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 5.333

10.  Sensitivity, specificity and predictive values of breast imaging in the detection of cancer.

Authors:  L E Duijm; G L Guit; J O Zaat; A R Koomen; D Willebrand
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  2 in total

1.  Routine clinical knee MR reports: comparison of diagnostic performance at 1.5 T and 3.0 T for assessment of the articular cartilage.

Authors:  Jacob C Mandell; Jeffrey A Rhodes; Nehal Shah; Glenn C Gaviola; Andreas H Gomoll; Stacy E Smith
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2017-07-17       Impact factor: 2.199

Review 2.  Errors in Mammography Cannot be Solved Through Technology Alone

Authors:  Ernest Usang Ekpo; Maram Alakhras; Patrick Brennan
Journal:  Asian Pac J Cancer Prev       Date:  2018-02-26
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.