Breast Cancer Detected with Screening US: Reasons for Nondetection at Mammography
- Title
- Breast Cancer Detected with Screening US: Reasons for Nondetection at Mammography
- Author
- 구혜령
- Keywords
- COMPUTER-AIDED DETECTION; DENSE BREASTS; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; FILM MAMMOGRAPHY; MISSED INTERVAL; WOMEN; ULTRASOUND; RISK; SONOGRAPHY; CLASSIFICATION
- Issue Date
- 2014-02
- Publisher
- Radiological Society of North America
- Citation
- Radiology, Feb 2014, 270(2), P.369-377
- Abstract
- 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.
- URI
- https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/10.1148/radiol.13130724http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11754/51655
- ISSN
- 0033-8419
- DOI
- 10.1148/radiol.13130724
- Appears in Collections:
- COLLEGE OF MEDICINE[S](의과대학) > ETC
- Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
- Export
- RIS (EndNote)
- XLS (Excel)
- XML