Breast Cancer Detected with Screening US: Reasons for Nondetection at Mammography

被引:124
作者
Bae, Min Sun [1 ]
Moon, Woo Kyung [1 ]
Chang, Jung Min [1 ]
Koo, Hye Ryoung [1 ]
Kim, Won Hwa [1 ]
Cho, Nariya [1 ]
Yi, Ann [2 ]
Yun, Bo La [1 ]
Lee, Su Hyun [1 ]
Kim, Mi Young [3 ]
Ryu, Eun Bi [1 ]
Seo, Mirinae [1 ]
机构
[1] Seoul Natl Univ, Coll Med, Dept Radiol, Seoul 110744, South Korea
[2] Seoul Natl Univ, Dept Radiol, Seoul Metropolitan Govt, Boramae Med Ctr, Seoul, South Korea
[3] Konkuk Univ, Dept Radiol, Med Ctr, Seoul, South Korea
关键词
DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; FILM MAMMOGRAPHY; MISSED INTERVAL; DENSE BREASTS; WOMEN; ULTRASOUND; PERFORMANCE; SONOGRAPHY; UTILITY; RISK;
D O I
10.1148/radiol.13130724
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页码:369 / 377
页数:9
相关论文
共 32 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2003, BREAST IM REP DAT SY
[2]   Digital Mammography: Clinical Image Evaluation [J].
Bassett, Lawrence W. ;
Hoyt, Anne C. ;
Oshiro, Thomas .
RADIOLOGIC CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA, 2010, 48 (05) :903-+
[3]  
Berg WA, 2011, RADIOLOGICAL SOC N A, P133
[4]   Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer [J].
Berg, Wendie A. ;
Blume, Jeffrey D. ;
Cormack, Jean B. ;
Mendelson, Ellen B. ;
Lehrer, Daniel ;
Bohm-Velez, Marcela ;
Pisano, Etta D. ;
Jong, Roberta A. ;
Evans, W. Phil ;
Morton, Marilyn J. ;
Mahoney, Mary C. ;
Larsen, Linda Hovanessian ;
Barr, Richard G. ;
Farria, Dione M. ;
Marques, Helga S. ;
Boparai, Karan .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2008, 299 (18) :2151-2163
[5]   Detection of Breast Cancer With Addition of Annual Screening Ultrasound or a Single Screening MRI to Mammography in Women With Elevated Breast Cancer Risk [J].
Berg, Wendie A. ;
Zhang, Zheng ;
Lehrer, Daniel ;
Jong, Roberta A. ;
Pisano, Etta D. ;
Barr, Richard G. ;
Boehm-Velez, Marcela ;
Mahoney, Mary C. ;
Evans, W. Phil, III ;
Larsen, Linda H. ;
Morton, Marilyn J. ;
Mendelson, Ellen B. ;
Farria, Dione M. ;
Cormack, Jean B. ;
Marques, Helga S. ;
Adams, Amanda ;
Yeh, Nolin M. ;
Gabrielli, Glenna .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2012, 307 (13) :1394-1404
[6]   Mammographic characteristics of 115 missed cancers later detected with screening mammography and the potential utility of computer-aided detection [J].
Birdwell, RL ;
Ikeda, DM ;
O'Shaughnessy, KF ;
Sickles, EA .
RADIOLOGY, 2001, 219 (01) :192-202
[7]   Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer [J].
Boyd, Norman F. ;
Guo, Helen ;
Martin, Lisa J. ;
Sun, Limei ;
Stone, Jennifer ;
Fishell, Eve ;
Jong, Roberta A. ;
Hislop, Greg ;
Chiarelli, Anna ;
Minkin, Salomon ;
Yaffe, Martin J. .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2007, 356 (03) :227-236
[8]   Clinically and mammographically occult breast lesions:: Detection and classification with high-resolution sonography [J].
Buchberger, W ;
Niehoff, A ;
Obrist, P ;
DeKoekkoek-Doll, P ;
Dünser, M .
SEMINARS IN ULTRASOUND CT AND MRI, 2000, 21 (04) :325-336
[9]   Features of Prospectively Overlooked Computer-Aided Detection Marks on Prior Screening Digital Mammograms in Women With Breast Cancer [J].
Cho, Nariya ;
Kim, Seung Ja ;
Choi, Hye Young ;
Lyou, Chae Yeon ;
Moon, Woo Kyung .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2010, 195 (05) :1276-1282
[10]   Interval breast cancers in screening: The effect of mammography review method on classification [J].
Ciatto, Stefano ;
Catarzi, Sandra ;
Lamberini, Maria Perla ;
Risso, Gabriella ;
Saguatti, Gianni ;
Abbattista, Teresa ;
Martinelli, Francesca ;
Houssami, Nehmat .
BREAST, 2007, 16 (06) :646-652