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

被引:122
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
    Bassett, Lawrence W.
    Hoyt, Anne C.
    Oshiro, Thomas
    [J]. 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
    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
    [J]. 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
    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
    [J]. 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
    Birdwell, RL
    Ikeda, DM
    O'Shaughnessy, KF
    Sickles, EA
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 2001, 219 (01) : 192 - 202
  • [7] Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer
    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.
    [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
    Buchberger, W
    Niehoff, A
    Obrist, P
    DeKoekkoek-Doll, P
    Dünser, M
    [J]. 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
    Cho, Nariya
    Kim, Seung Ja
    Choi, Hye Young
    Lyou, Chae Yeon
    Moon, Woo Kyung
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2010, 195 (05) : 1276 - 1282
  • [10] Interval breast cancers in screening: The effect of mammography review method on classification
    Ciatto, Stefano
    Catarzi, Sandra
    Lamberini, Maria Perla
    Risso, Gabriella
    Saguatti, Gianni
    Abbattista, Teresa
    Martinelli, Francesca
    Houssami, Nehmat
    [J]. BREAST, 2007, 16 (06) : 646 - 652