Can peer review contribute to earlier detection of breast cancer? A quality initiative to learn from false-negative mammograms

Breast Journal

Volumn 14, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 330-334

  Siegal, Emily C ^a   Angelakis, Elizabeth J ^a   Hartman, Audrey ^a  

^a LAHEY HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Breast cancer; Detection; False negative; Mammogram; Peer review; Quality assurance; Screening

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST BIOPSY; BREAST CALCIFICATION; BREAST CANCER; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER LOCALIZATION; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; FALSE NEGATIVE RESULT; HUMAN; MAMMOGRAPHY; BREAST TUMOR; CALCINOSIS; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; PEER REVIEW; RADIOGRAPHY; UNITED STATES;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; CALCINOSIS; FALSE NEGATIVE REACTIONS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASSACHUSETTS; PEER REVIEW; QUALITY ASSURANCE, HEALTH CARE;

EID: 54049118504     PISSN: 1075122X     EISSN: 15244741     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4741.2008.00593.x     Document Type: Article

References (11)

1. Bird RE, Wallace TW, Yankaskas BC. Analysis of cancers missed at screening mammography. Radiology 1992;184:613-7.
2. Birdwell R, Ikeda D, O'Shaughnessy K, Sickles E. Mammo-graphic characteristics of 115 missed cancers later detected with screening mammography and the potential utility of computer aided detection. Radiology 2001;219:192-202.
3. Kolb T, Lichy J, Newhouse J. Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination and breast ultrasound and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. Radiology 2002;225:165-75.
4. Mandelson MT, Oestreicher N, Porter PL, et al. Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval and screen detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92: 1081-7.
5. Smith-Bindman R, Chu P, Miglioretti D, et al. Comparison of screening mammography in the United States and the United Kingdom. JAMA 2004;291:824.
6. Baker LH. Breast cancer detection demonstration project: five year summary report. CA Cancer J Clin 1982;32:194-225.
7. Harvey JA, Fajardo LL, Innis CA. Preview mammograms on patients with impalpable breast carcinomas: retrospective vs. blind interpretation. Am J Roentgenol 1993;161:1167-72.
8. Baker J, Rosen E, Lo J, Gimenez E, Walsh R, Soo M. Computer-aided detection (CAD) in screening mammography: sensitivity of commercial CAD systems for detecting architectural distortion. Am J Roentgenol 2003;181:1083-8.
9. Karssemeijer N, Otten J, Verbeek A, et al. Computer-aided detection versus independent double reading of masses on mammo-grams. Radiology 2003;227:192-200.
10. Hermann KP, Obenauer S, Funke M, Grabbe E. Magnification mammography; a comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for the detection of simulated small masses and microcalcalcifications. Eur Radiol 2002;12:2188-91.
11. Boyd N, Guo H, Martin L, et al. Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2007;3:227-36.