BACKGROUND: The occurrence of an interval cancer in a mammographic screening program is indicative of a suboptimum effect on mortality, because the very aim of the screening is to detect as many cancers as possible and at their earliest possible stage. In several studies, the previous screening mammograms of patients with an interval cancer were reviewed and the reasons for the "missed diagnosis" were classified into four categories: "screening error" (20-29%), "minimal sign present" (30-40%), "radiographically occult" (33-58%), or "radiographically occult at diagnosis" (occult both at previous screening and diagnosis; 7-16%). A similar procedure was followed in the Nijmegen screening project with patients recently diagnosed as having interval cancer or screen-detected cancer. METHODS: The previous screening mammograms of 40 interval and 44 screen-detected cases from the breast cancer screening program in Nijmegen were reviewed and categorized as specified above. These breast cancers were diagnosed clinically before the patient was invited to the eighth screening round (interval cancer) or were detected at the eighth screening round (screen-detected cancer). All these patients had been screened in the seventh round (1987-88). RESULTS: Thirteen percent of all cases were classified as "screening error," 38% as "minimal sign present," 43% as "radiographically occult," and 6% as "radiographically occult at diagnosis." In nearly half of the screen-detected cancers, minimal signs appeared to be present on the previous screening mammogram 2 years before the diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Annual instead of biennial screening may advance detection in most of the "screening error" cases as well as in some in the categories "minimal sign present" and "radiographically occult" at the previous screening. Meticulous analysis of the radiologic characteristics of the "minimal sign present" cases may very well lead to results showing that earlier detection is possible without a significant decrease in the specificity of the screening test.
BACKGROUND: The occurrence of an interval cancer in a mammographic screening program is indicative of a suboptimum effect on mortality, because the very aim of the screening is to detect as many cancers as possible and at their earliest possible stage. In several studies, the previous screening mammograms of patients with an interval cancer were reviewed and the reasons for the "missed diagnosis" were classified into four categories: "screening error" (20-29%), "minimal sign present" (30-40%), "radiographically occult" (33-58%), or "radiographically occult at diagnosis" (occult both at previous screening and diagnosis; 7-16%). A similar procedure was followed in the Nijmegen screening project with patients recently diagnosed as having interval cancer or screen-detected cancer. METHODS: The previous screening mammograms of 40 interval and 44 screen-detected cases from the breast cancer screening program in Nijmegen were reviewed and categorized as specified above. These breast cancers were diagnosed clinically before the patient was invited to the eighth screening round (interval cancer) or were detected at the eighth screening round (screen-detected cancer). All these patients had been screened in the seventh round (1987-88). RESULTS: Thirteen percent of all cases were classified as "screening error," 38% as "minimal sign present," 43% as "radiographically occult," and 6% as "radiographically occult at diagnosis." In nearly half of the screen-detected cancers, minimal signs appeared to be present on the previous screening mammogram 2 years before the diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Annual instead of biennial screening may advance detection in most of the "screening error" cases as well as in some in the categories "minimal sign present" and "radiographically occult" at the previous screening. Meticulous analysis of the radiologic characteristics of the "minimal sign present" cases may very well lead to results showing that earlier detection is possible without a significant decrease in the specificity of the screening test.
Authors: J D Otten; J A van Dijck; P G Peer; H Straatman; A L Verbeek; M Mravunac; J H Hendriks; R Holland Journal: J Epidemiol Community Health Date: 1996-06 Impact factor: 3.710
Authors: Tanya D Geertse; Roland Holland; Janine M H Timmers; Ellen Paap; Ruud M Pijnappel; Mireille J M Broeders; Gerard J den Heeten Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-04-23 Impact factor: 5.315