Missed Breast Cancers Research Articles

Assessing the Factors Leading to Missed Breast Cancer Diagnoses in Mammography Among Pakistani Women: A Prospective Cross-Sectional Study

Assessing the Factors Leading to Missed Breast Cancer Diagnoses in Mammography Among Pakistani Women: A Prospective Cross-Sectional Study

Australian radiographers’ digital era practice in selecting the image receptor angle for female body habitus for the mediolateral oblique view of the breast

IntroductionCorrect alignment of the image receptor (IR) in mammography for the mediolateral oblique (MLO) view of the breast is fundamental to enable the maximum inclusion of breast tissue. This study aims to assess Australian radiographers' knowledge and digital era practice in selecting the IR angle for female body habitus in the MLO view of the breast. MethodsAn online survey was distributed to all members of the Australian Society of Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy (ASMIRT) through their electronic newsletter and via direct email to radiographers holding the Certificate of Mammographic Practice (CMP). Descriptive analysis was undertaken, and a Pearson's chi-squared test of independence was used to compare associations between academic qualification and IR selection data. A value of p < 0.05 was deemed statistically significant. ResultsA total of 107 valid surveys were returned; 67.3 % reported using the posterior lateral margin to select the IR angle. For linear body habitus, 44.9 % reported using 50°; for all other body habitus, participants most commonly used 45° (59.1 %); 85.1 % used a range of angles between 40 and 55°; 16.8 % recognised the link between correct IR angle selection and breast tissue inclusion. ConclusionThe range of angles used in practice has reduced in the digital era; the frequency of the use of 45° across all body habitus may reflect tube angle movement automation. Few radiographers recognised the important link between correct selection of IR angle and breast tissue inclusion on the image. Implications for practiceUnderstanding of the link between IR angle selection and image quality enhances current practice in the digital era to maximise the inclusion of breast tissue and minimise the potential of missed breast cancer.

Interval breast cancer: radiological surveillance in screening Egyptian population

BackgroundInterval cancers might be divided into true negative interval cancer where a new lesion is detected that no sign of disease could be detected on previous screening mammogram. For false-negative interval cancers, those missed for overt symptoms and those missed for mild or undetectable ones, this includes interpretive error as benign interval cancer (benign mimics), subtle changes, masked carcinoma or slowly growing or patient factors, such as the dense breast parenchyma. Technical failure interval cancer hampered the reader to discover the abnormality. The aim of this study was to relate the risk factors for the development of the interval breast cancer such as breast density, positive family history of breast cancer in Egyptian population. Highlight the causes of missed breast cancer in order to overcome it in the future radiological interpretation.MethodsA total of 74,546 screening mammographic examinations were performed in the radiology department at specialized breast cancer center in the period between 2015 and 2021 with about 844 pathologically proved malignant cases. Out of the 844 pathologically proven breast cancer cases, 185 breast cancer patients were interval breast cancer having reported normal examination in the previous year, 88 were true interval breast cancer and 97 were missed on mammography and detected later on. The cases were subjected to full-field digital mammogram (FFDM), complementary ultrasound, contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in some cases, and all cases were histopathologically proven by either fine needle aspiration, core needle biopsy (CNB) or open biopsy.ResultsThe mean age of the patients was 53.5 years (range 36–83 years). The overall breast cancer detection rate was 11 per 1000 women. The 185 interval cancers were present at a rate of 3.8 per 1000 women. True negative interval breast cancers where 88 cancers were not present in retrospect on screening mammograms, 17 cases present with benign findings (benign mimics mass or calcifications) and 80 cancers were missed cancers. Analysis of the cause of missed carcinoma revealed patient-related, tumor-related, or provider-related factors. Tumor factors were the most commonly encountered, accounting for 49.5% (48 cases), then provider factors in 25.8% (25 cases) while the patient factors were the least commonly encountered in 24.7% (24 cases). Recorded positive family history found in about 35% (31cases) of the true interval breast cancers.ConclusionsAlthough mammography is the standard for detecting early breast cancer, some cancers can be missed due to various causes. Mammographic interpretation must meet high standards to reduce missed cancers. Radiologists should carefully assess screening views and order additional imaging if needed. Palpable lesions and clinical data should be further examined with ultrasound and contrast imaging if necessary. Always compare current images with previous examinations to check for any changes in lesion size. When one pathology is found, search for additional lesions.

Implementing the National Dense Breast Reporting Standard, Expanding Supplemental Screening Using Current Guidelines, and the Proposed Find It Early Act.

Thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia (DC) have dense breast notification laws that mandate varying levels of patient notification about breast density after a mammogram, and these cover over 90% of American women. On March 10, 2023, the Food and Drug Administration issued a final rule amending regulations under the Mammography Quality Standards Act for a national dense breast reporting standard for both patient results letters and mammogram reports. Effective September 10, 2024, letters will be required to tell a woman her breasts are "dense" or "not dense," that dense tissue makes it harder to find cancers on a mammogram, and that it increases the risk of developing cancer. Women with dense breasts will also be told that other imaging tests in addition to a mammogram may help find cancers. The specific density category can be added (eg, if mandated by a state "inform" law). Reports to providers must include the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System density category. Implementing appropriate supplemental screening should be based on patient risk for missed breast cancer on mammography; such assessment should include consideration of breast density and other risk factors. This article discusses strategies for implementation. Currently 21 states and DC have varying insurance laws for supplemental breast imaging; in addition, Oklahoma requires coverage for diagnostic breast imaging. A federal insurance bill, the Find It Early Act, has been introduced that would ensure no-cost screening and diagnostic imaging for women with dense breasts or at increased risk and close loopholes in state laws.

Patient, primary care provider, and stakeholder perspectives on mammography screening frequency: lessons learned from a qualitative study

BackgroundU.S. professional organizations have provided conflicting recommendations on annual vs. biennial mammography screening. Potential harms of more frequent screening include increased anxiety and costs of false positive results, including unnecessary breast biopsies and overdiagnosis.ObjectiveTo characterize current practices and beliefs surrounding mammography screening frequency and perspectives on using risk-based screening to inform screening intervals.DesignSemi-structured interviews informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).ParticipantsPatients, primary care providers (PCPs), third-party stakeholders (breast radiologists, radiology administrators, patient advocates).Main measuresQualitative data, with a codebook developed based upon prespecified implementation science constructs.Key resultsWe interviewed 25 patients, 11 PCPs, and eight key stakeholders, including three radiologists, two radiology administrators, and three patient advocates. Most patients reported having annual mammograms, however, half believed having mammograms every two years was acceptable. Some women were worried early breast cancer would be missed if undergoing biennial screening. PCPs were equally split between recommending annual and biennial mammograms. Although PCPs were interested in using breast cancer risk models to inform screening decisions, concerns raised include time burden and lack of familiarity with breast cancer risk assessment tools. All breast radiologists believed patients should receive annual mammograms, while patient advocates and radiology administrators were split between annual vs. biennial. Radiologists were worried about missing breast cancer diagnoses when mammograms are not performed yearly. Patient advocates and radiology administrators were more open to biennial mammograms and utilizing risk-based screening.ConclusionsUncertainty remains across stakeholder groups regarding appropriate mammogram screening intervals. Radiologists recommend annual mammography, whereas patients and PCPs were evenly split between annual vs. biennial screening, although both favored annual screening among higher-risk women. Breast cancer risk assessment tools may help facilitate decisions about screening intervals, but face barriers to widespread implementation in the primary care setting. These results will inform future implementation strategies to adopt risk-stratified breast cancer screening.

Body Mass Index and Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening.

Background:Breast and cervical cancer screening are responsible for dramatically reducing cancer deaths. Overweight and obesity are associated with deleterious health outcomes, including increased risk of developing cancer. This study adds to the existing literature examining the association of having overweight and obesity and receipt of breast or cervical cancer screening.Methods:Using the 2013 Brazos Valley Community Health Needs Assessment, we examined the association between body mass index (BMI) and receipt of breast or cervical cancer screening among women meeting age recommendations for breast cancer and cervical cancer screening (n = 1979 and n = 2040), respectively. We used SPSS 22 statistical software for descriptive and logistic regression analysis.Results:Overall, 26.6% of women missed the breast cancer screening guidelines, and 13.3% missed the cervical cancer screening guidelines. BMI had a weak association with missing cervical cancer screenings (odds ratio [OR] = 1.02; confidence interval [CI] = 1.01–1.04), but no association with missing breast cancer screenings (OR = 1.01; CI = 0.99–1.03). Higher age, race (non-White), rural area, no health insurance, smoking, and delayed health care were associated with missing breast cancer screenings. Higher age, marital status (single), lower education, no health insurance, smoking, and delayed health care were associated with missing cervical cancer screening. Further research is needed to better understand the association using larger, more diverse samples.

Current status of breast cancer undetected by mammography in population-based breast cancer screening and associated factors

Objective This study aimed to promote the application of mammography (MMG) screening without performing a clinical breast examination (CBE). It examined population-based screening data, including history taking findings, to elucidate the status of breast cancer cases, detected solely by CBE, and to reveal the factors associated with breast cancer. Through this, it explored alternative methods for evaluating breast cancer cases, undetected by MMG, when CBE is omitted.Methods The linked anonymized data from women, who underwent breast cancer screening in 2014, 2016, or 2017, were prepared. The data were obtained from the Nishinomiya City database. Breast cancer, undetected by MMG, were defined as breast cancer cases diagnosed by close examination based on CBE only (MMG findings were category 2 or lower, with no abnormalities). To assess the quality of breast cancer screening, process indices were calculated for the overall population, and for patients indicated for close examination based on CBE but not MMG. The association of breast cancer with each factor was statistically analyzed (χ2 test, etc.).Results In total, 13,504 women underwent breast cancer screening. Close examination was required in 1,247 women (9.2%). Breast cancer was diagnosed in 44 women (3.5%), including four, who had breast cancer undetected by MMG. All of the process indices satisfied the acceptable values. Three of the four women with breast cancer, undetected by MMG, noticed a lump. Breast cancer was significantly associated with "subjective symptoms". The presence of a "lump" and "nipple discharge" were significantly more common in breast cancer patients.Conclusion Three of the four breast cancer cases, undetected by MMG screening, had a subjective symptom (lump). There was a significant association between subjective symptoms (lump and nipple discharge) and breast cancer. To avoid missing breast cancer, undetected by MMG alone, these symptoms should be especially evaluated in women to compensate for the omission of a CBE. This can be achieved by encouraging women experiencing symptoms to seek consult, performing a thorough history-taking and observation, engaging in multidisciplinary collaboration (communication from medical staff to physicians), and promoting breast awareness.

Missed Breast Cancers on MRI in High-Risk Patients: A Retrospective Case-Control Study.

Purpose: To determine if MRI features and molecular subtype influence the detectability of breast cancers on MRI in high-risk patients. Methods and Materials: Breast cancers in a high-risk population of 104 patients were diagnosed following MRI describing a BI-RADS 4–5 lesion. MRI characteristics at the time of diagnosis were compared with previous MRI, where a BI-RADS 1–2–3 lesion was described. Results: There were 77 false-negative MRIs. A total of 51 cancers were overlooked and 26 were misinterpreted. There was no association found between MRI characteristics, the receptor type and the frequency of missed cancers. The main factors for misinterpreted lesions were multiple breast lesions, prior biopsy/surgery and long-term stability. Lesions were mostly overlooked because of their small size and high background parenchymal enhancement. Among missed lesions, 50% of those with plateau kinetics on initial MRI changed for washout kinetics, and 65% of initially progressively enhancing lesions then showed plateau or washout kinetics. There were more basal-like tumours in BRCA1 carriers (50%) than in non-carriers (13%), p = 0.0001, OR = 6.714, 95% CI = [2.058–21.910]. The proportion of missed cancers was lower in BRCA carriers (59%) versus non-carriers (79%), p < 0.05, OR = 2.621, 95% CI = [1.02–6.74]. Conclusions: MRI characteristics or molecular subtype do not influence breast cancer detectability. Lesions in a post-surgical breast should be assessed with caution. Long-term stability does not rule out malignancy and multimodality evaluation is of added value. Lowering the biopsy threshold for lesions with an interval change in kinetics for a type 2 or 3 curve should be considered. There was a higher rate of interval cancers in BRCA 1 patients attributed to lesions more aggressive in nature.

Changes in breast cancer screening rates among 32 community health centers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BackgroundBreast cancer screening utilization steeply dropped at the start of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic. However, the effects on breast cancer screening in lower income populations are unknown. This study examined changes in breast cancer screening rates (BCSRs) during the pandemic among 32 community health centers (CHCs) that provided health care to lower income populations.MethodsSecondary data from 32 CHCs participating in an American Cancer Society grant program to increase breast cancer screening services were used. BCSRs were defined as the percentage of women aged 50 to 74 years who had a medical visit in the past 12 months (142,207 in 2018, 142,003 in 2019, and 150,630 in 2020) and received a screening mammogram within the last 27 months. BCSRs in July 2020, July 2019, and June 2018 were compared with screening rate ratios (SRRs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).ResultsBCSRs significantly rose by 18% between 2018 and 2019 (from 45.8% to 53.9%; SRR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.17‐1.18) and then declined by 8% between 2019 and 2020 (from 53.9% to 49.6%; SRR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.92‐0.93). If the 2018‐2019 BCSR trends had continued through 2020, 63.3% of women would have been screened in 2020 in contrast to the 49.6% who were; this potentially translated into 47,517 fewer mammograms and 242 missed breast cancer diagnoses in this population.ConclusionsIn this study of 32 CHCs, BCSRs declined by 8% from July 2019 to 2020, and this reversed an 18% improvement between July 2018 and 2019. Declining BCSRs among CHCs during the COVID‐19 pandemic call for policies to support and resources to identify women in need of screening.

Breast cancer survivorship care during the COVID-19 pandemic within an urban New York Hospital System

PurposeTo examine clinicodemographic determinants associated with breast cancer survivorship follow-up during COVID-19. MethodsWe performed a retrospective, population-based cohort study including early stage (Stage I-II) breast cancer patients who underwent resection between 2006 and 2018 in a New York City hospital system. The primary outcome was oncologic follow-up prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Secondary analyses compared differences in follow-up by COVID-19 case rates stratified by ZIP code. ResultsA total of 2942 patients with early-stage breast cancer were available for analysis. 1588 (54%) of patients had attended follow-up in the year prior to the COVID-19 period but failed to continue to follow-up during the pandemic, either in-person or via telemedicine. 1242 (42%) patients attended a follow-up appointment during the COVID-19 pandemic.Compared with patients who did not present for follow-up during COVID-19, patients who continued their oncologic follow-up during the pandemic were younger (p = 0.049) more likely to have received adjuvant radiation therapy (p = 0.025), and have lower household income (p = 0.031) on multivariate modeling. When patients who live in Bronx, New York, were stratified by ZIP code, there was a modest negative association (r = −0.56) between COVID-19 cases and proportion of patients who continued to follow-up during the COVID-19 period. ConclusionWe observed a dramatic disruption in routine breast cancer follow-up during the COVID-19 pandemic. Providers and health systems should emphasize reintegrating patients who missed appointments during COVID-19 back into regular surveillance programs to avoid significant morbidity and mortality from missed breast cancer recurrences.

The relationship between missed breast cancers on mammography in a test-set based assessment scheme and real-life performance in a National Breast Screening Programme

PurposeThis retrospective study determined whether a test-set based assessment scheme (PERFORMS) used in a national breast screening programme could be used to predict real-life performance by investigating if the number of cancers missed by mammography readers in real-life related to the number of cancers missed in the PERFORMS test-set and whether real-life reading volumes affected performance. MethodData was obtained from consenting readers in the screening programme in England (NHSBSP) where double reading is standard. The rate of cancers missed by individual first readers but correctly identified by second readers was compared with the number of cancers missed in the PERFORMS test-set over a 3-year period. NHSBSP readers are required to interpret at least 1500 cases per year as a first reader, so results were compared between readers who exceeded this target and those that did not. Parametric and non-parametric correlations were calculated. ResultsAmongst the 536 readers, there was a highly significant positive correlation between the real-life and PERFORMS test-set missed cancer metrics (Pearson Correlation = 0.228, n = 536, p < .0001, Spearman's rho = 0.265, n = 536, p < .0001). There was no significant difference in rates of missed cancers between the 452 readers who exceeded the 1500 first read per year target and those who did not (t(94.2) = −1.87, p = .0643, r = 0.19). ConclusionsThe use of a test-set based assessment scheme accurately reflects real-life mammography reading performance, indicating that it can be a useful tool in identifying poor reader performance.

Can supplementary contrast-enhanced MRI of the breast avoid needle biopsies in suspicious microcalcifications seen on mammography? A systematic review and meta-analysis

PurposeTo analyze the rate of potentially avoidable needle biopsies in mammographically suspicious calcifications if supplementary Contrast-Enhanced MRI (CE-MRI) is negative. MethodsUsing predefined criteria, a systematic review was performed. Studies investigating the use of supplemental CE-MRI in the setting of mammographically suspicious calcifications undergoing stereotactic biopsy and published between 2000 and 2020 were eligible. Two reviewers extracted study characteristics and true positives (TP), false positives, true negatives and false negatives (FN). Specificity, in this setting equaling the number of avoidable biopsies and FN rates were calculated. The maximum pre-test probability at which post-test probabilities of a negative CE-MRI met with BI-RADS benchmarks was determined by a Fagan nomogram. Random-effects models, I2-statistics, Deek’s funnel plot testing and meta-regression were employed. P-values <0.05 were considered significant. ResultsThirteen studies investigating 1414 lesions with a cancer prevalence of 43.6% (range: 22.7–66.9%) were included. No publication bias was found (P = 0.91). CE-MRI performed better in pure microcalcification studies compared to those also including associate findings (P < 0.001). In the first group, the pooled rate of avoidable biopsies was 80.6% (95%-CI: 64.6–90.5%) while the overall and invasive cancer FN rates were 3.7% (95%-CI: 1.2–6.2%) and 1.6% (95%-CI 0–3.6%), respectively. Up to a pre-test probability of 22%, the post-test probability did not exceed 2%. ConclusionA negative supplementary CE-MRI could potentially avoid 80.6% of unnecessary stereotactic biopsies in BI-RADS 4 microcalcifications at a cost of 3.7% missed breast cancers, 1.6% invasive. BI-RADS benchmarks for downgrading mammographic calcifications would be met up to a pretest probability of 22%.

Survival among women diagnosed with screen-detected or interval breast cancer classified as true, minimal signs, or missed through an informed radiological review

Objectives“True” breast cancers, defined as not being visible on prior screening mammograms, are expected to be more aggressive than “missed” cancers, which are visible in retrospect. However, the evidence to support this hypothesis is limited. We compared the risk of death from any cause for women with true, minimal signs, and missed invasive screen-detected (SDC) and interval breast cancers (IC).MethodsThis nation-wide study included 1022 SDC and 788 IC diagnosed through BreastScreen Norway during 2005–2016. Cancers were classified as true, minimal signs, or missed by five breast radiologists in a consensus-based informed review of prior screening and diagnostic images. We used multivariable Cox regression to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the risk of death from any cause associated with true, minimal signs, and missed breast cancers, adjusting for age at diagnosis, histopathologic tumour diameter and grade, and subtype. Separate models were created for SDC and IC.ResultsAmong SDC, 463 (44%) were classified as true and 242 (23%) as missed; among IC, 325 (39%) were classified as true and 235 (32%) missed. Missed SDC were associated with a similar risk of death as true SDC (HR = 1.20, 95% CI (0.49, 2.46)). Similar results were observed for missed versus true IC (HR = 1.31, 95% CI (0.77, 2.23)).ConclusionsWe did not observe a statistical difference in the risk of death for women diagnosed with true or missed SDC or IC; however, the number of cases reviewed and follow-up time limited the precision of our estimates.Key Points• An informed radiological review classified screen-detected and interval cancers as true, minimal signs, or missed based on prior screening and diagnostic mammograms.• It has been hypothesised that true cancers, not visible on the prior screening examination, may be more aggressive than missed cancers.• We did not observe a statistical difference in the risk of death from any cause for women with missed versus true screen-detected or interval breast cancers.

Missed Breast Cancer: Effects of Subconscious Bias and Lesion Characteristics.

Medical errors are a substantial cause of morbidity and mortality and the third leading cause of death in the United States. Errors resulting in missed breast cancer are the most common reason for medical malpractice lawsuits against all physicians. Missed breast cancers are breast malignancies that are detectable at retrospective review of a previously obtained mammogram that was prospectively reported as showing negative, benign, or probably benign findings. Investigators in prior studies have found that up to 35% of both interval cancers and screen-detected cancers could be classified as missed. As such, in conjunction with having awareness of the most common misleading appearances of breast cancer, it is important to understand the cognitive processes and unconscious biases that can impact image interpretation, thereby helping to decrease the number of missed breast cancers. The various cognitive processes that lead to unconscious bias in breast imaging, such as satisfaction of search, inattention blindness, hindsight, anchoring, premature closing, and satisfaction of reporting, are outlined in this pictorial review of missed breast cancers. In addition, strategies for reducing the rates of these missed cancers are highlighted. The most commonly missed and misinterpreted lesions, including stable lesions, benign-appearing masses, one-view findings, developing asymmetries, subtle calcifications, and architectural distortion, also are reviewed. This information will help illustrate why and how breast cancers are missed and aid in the development of appropriate minimization strategies in breast imaging. ©RSNA, 2020.

Anxiety and depressive symptoms and missing breast cancer and cervical screening: results from Brazos valley community health survey

ABSTRACTBreast and cervical cancer screening are associated with dramatically reduced cancer mortality. Mental illnesses have been demonstrated to influence preventative behaviours. This study aims to explore whether anxiety or depressive symptoms is associated with breast and cervical cancer screening. We analyzed data (n = 3104) from the 2013 Brazos Valley Community Health Assessment. The GAD-7 Scale was used to assess the anxiety level, and PHQ-2 was used to assess the depressive symptoms. Stata 15.0 statistical software was used to perform descriptive and logistic regression analysis. Overall, 80.61% of women in each sample met breast cancer or cervical cancer screening guidelines, respectfully. Anxiety was associated with missing breast and cervical cancer screening, but the association was only significant for cervical cancer (OR = 1.430, CI = 1.009, 2.026), not for breast cancer (OR = 1.406, CI = .952, 2.078). Depressive symptom was significantly associated with missing breast (OR = 1.502, CI = 1.051, 2.149) and cervical (OR = 1.689, CI = 1.208, 2.362) cancer screening after controlling for demographics. Women with depressive symptoms and anxiety had higher odds of missing breast and cervical cancer screening. Health promotion programs should consider targeting individuals with anxiety and depression to improve cancer-screening rates..

Breast cancers missed during screening in a tertiary-care hospital mammography facility.

ABSTRACTBACKGROUND: Breast cancer is the most common cancer in females worldwide. Screening with mammography for early breast cancer detection is standard community practice in many countries.OBJECTIVE: Identify causes of missed breast cancers during screening.DESIGN: Retrospective, observational.SETTING: Department of radiology at a tertiary-care hospital mammographic screening facility.PATIENTS AND METHODS: All women who came with initial negative screens from July 2015 to July 2018 were retrospectively reviewed and followed-up for their second or subsequent mammographic screening. Missed breast cancer was defined as a cancer that was detected on a subsequent mammogram with an initial negative screen. Mammograms were interpreted by two radiologists as per BIRADS (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System) lexicon. Causes of missed breast cancers were categorized as imaging acquisition (IA), imaging feature (IF) and imaging interpretation (II). True (occult) incident breast cancers were also documented. Percentage estimations for these causes were calculated.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Breast cancer detection on follow-up screening.SAMPLE SIZE: 943 women.RESULTS: Of 15 (1.6%) screening-detected breast cancers, 7 cases (46.6%) were missed on the initial screen; 3 (43%) of these were II related, 2 (28.5%) of each were IA and IF. The remaining true (occult) cases were detected on either the second (5 cases) or third screens (3 cases).CONCLUSION: Improved screening facilities, quality mammographic acquisition and interpretation, double reading, and implementation of an organized screening program may help to avoid missed breast cancers.LIMITATIONS: Retrospective, small sample, single center, and short duration study.CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None.

Can high school students help to improve breast radiologists in detecting missed breast cancer lesions on full-field digital mammography?

Aim: To investigate whether full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM), evaluated by non-experienced high school students, improves detection of missed breast cancer lesions on FFDM, in the same cohort of patients.Methods: Non-experienced first- and second year high school students examined fourteen cases of patients diagnosed with breast cancer. These cases consisted of missed breast cancer lesions on FFDM by a breast radiologist. Sensitivity of assessment of the students on FFDM and CEM was analysed and compared with the initial results of the breast radiologists.Results: A total of 134 high school students participated in this study. Mean age was 12.8 years (range 10-14). Based on FFDM, mean overall sensitivity of the students was 29.2% (18.9 - 39.6%). When recombined CEM images were used, mean overall sensitivity of students improved to 82.6% (74.0 - 91.2%) (p=0.001). Mean overall sensitivity of FFDM exams evaluated by radiologists was 75.7% (64.2 - 87.3%), which was lower when compared to student's evaluations on recombined CEM exams, yet not statistically significant (p=0.098).Conclusions: Contrast-enhanced mammography evaluated by non-experienced high school students might improve detection rate of breast cancer when compared to evaluations of only full-field digital mammography by radiologists.

Missed Breast Cancer: What We Can Do!

Background: Breast cancer is a major health concern all over the world, and also in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Despite availability of modern facilities in diagnosis and improvements in healthcare systems, still many of the breast cancers are missed. Careful understanding of situation may help to minimize and even stop such unfortunate outcomes. Aim: To highlight various aspects of missed breast cancers on mammography based on their cause and course of disease. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed clinical information, imaging data and outcomes of mammography in patients who presented for both screening and diagnostic mammography in our hospital. Although we found less number of patients having diagnosed or developed breast cancer (on follow-up mammography and biopsy results) with initial negative mammogram studies. Careful analysis of clinical and imaging findings were made and interviews with the patients conducted to sort out cause of such unfortunate outcome (of missed breast cancer). Results: We found important aspects of missed breast cancers because of patient factors (lack of awareness for importance of regular check-up, social factors, inertia for access to care and late check-up), imaging related (suboptimal acquisition of mammogram views), physician related (unfamiliarity with rad-reports and BIRADS classification, late referral) and natural causes (rapid course of disease). Conclusion: Causes of missed breast cancers may be simple to understand but sometimes overlooked by anyone in the chain of process (from technician, patient, radiologist and physician). Careful analysis, creating awareness and implementing standardized practice may help to overcome such unwanted events.

The incidence of missed breast cancers with the use of digital breast tomosynthesis in a symptomatic breast unit

Category: Breast

519 (PB-152) - The incidence of missed breast cancers in a one stop symptomatic breast clinic-our experience in Southwest Wales

519 (PB-152) - The incidence of missed breast cancers in a one stop symptomatic breast clinic-our experience in Southwest Wales