Breast cancer detected with screening US: Reasons for nondetection at mammography

Radiology

Volumn 270, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 369-377

  Bae, Min Sun ^a   Moon, Woo Kyung ^a   Chang, Jung Min ^a   Koo, Hye Ryoung ^a   Kim, Won Hwa ^a   Cho, Nariya ^a   Yi, Ann ^b   Yun, Bo La ^a   Lee, Su Hyun ^a   Kim, Mi Young ^c   Ryu, Eun Bi ^a   Seo, Mirinae ^a  

^a Seoul National University   (South Korea)

^b Seoul National University Boramae Hospital   (South Korea)

^c Konkuk University Hospital   (South Korea)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER SCREENING; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; ECHOMAMMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MIDDLE AGED; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIOLOGIST; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY;

ADULT; AGED; BREAST NEOPLASMS; DIAGNOSIS, DIFFERENTIAL; DIAGNOSTIC ERRORS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; ULTRASONOGRAPHY, MAMMARY;

EID: 84893433211     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.13130724     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. 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(13):1081-1087.
2. Boyd NF, Guo H, Martin LJ, et al. Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2007;356(3):227-236.
3. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27, 825 patient evaluations. Radiology 2002;225(1):165-175.
4. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2005;353(17):1773-1783.
5. Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, et al. Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA 2008;299(18):2151-2163.
6. Hooley RJ, Greenberg KL, Stackhouse RM, Geisel JL, Butler RS, Philpotts LE. Screening US in patients with mammographically dense breasts: initial experience with Connecticut Public Act 09-41. Radiology 2012;265(1):59-69.
7. Harvey JA, Bovbjerg VE. Quantitative assessment of mammographic breast density: relationship with breast cancer risk. Radiology 2004;230(1):29-41.
8. Berg WA, Zhang Z, Lehrer D, et al. Detection of breast cancer with addition of annual screening ultrasound or a single screening MRI to mammography in women with elevated breast cancer risk. JAMA 2012;307(13):1394-1404.
9. Corsetti V, Houssami N, Ferrari A, et al. Breast screening with ultrasound in women with mammography-negative dense breasts: evidence on incremental cancer detection and false positives, and associated cost. Eur J Cancer 2008;44(4):539-544.
10. Crystal P, Strano SD, Shcharynski S, Koretz MJ. Using sonography to screen women with mammographically dense breasts. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;181(1):177-182.
11. Leconte I, Feger C, Galant C, et al. Mammography and subsequent whole-breast sonography of nonpalpable breast cancers: the importance of radiologic breast density. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;180(6):1675-1679.
12. Kaplan SS. Clinical utility of bilateral whole-breast US in the evaluation of women with dense breast tissue. Radiology 2001;221(3):641-649.
13. Buchberger W, Niehoff A, Obrist P, DeKoekkoek-Doll P, Dünser M. Clinically and mammographically occult breast lesions: detection and classification with highresolution sonography. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2000;21(4):325-336.
14. Mainiero MB, Lourenco A, Mahoney MC, et al. ACR appropriateness criteria breast cancer screening. J Am Coll Radiol 2013;10(1):11-14.
15. Berg WA, Mendelson EB, LePetross HC, Zhang Z, Marques H, Adams A. Reasons for failed cancer detection in the ACRIN 6666 screening protocol: mammography, US, and MRI (abstr). In: Radiological Society of North America scientific assembly and annual meeting program. Oak Brook, Ill: Radiological Society of North America, 2011;133.
16. Harvey JA, Fajardo LL, Innis CA. Previous mammograms in patients with impalpable breast carcinoma: retrospective vs blinded interpretation-1993 ARRS President's Award. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1993;161(6):1167-1172.
17. Birdwell RL, Ikeda DM, O'Shaughnessy KF, Sickles EA. Mammographic characteristics of 115 missed cancers later detected with screening mammography and the potential utility of computer-aided detection. Radiology 2001;219(1):192-202.
18. Ikeda DM, Birdwell RL, O'Shaughnessy KF, Brenner RJ, Sickles EA. Analysis of 172 subtle findings on prior normal mammograms in women with breast cancer detected at follow-up screening. Radiology 2003;226(2):494-503.
19. Cho N, Kim SJ, Choi HY, Lyou CY, Moon WK. Features of prospectively overlooked computer-aided detection marks on prior screening digital mammograms in women with breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010;195(5):1276-1282.
20. Hoff SR, Abrahamsen AL, Samset JH, Vigeland E, Klepp O, Hofvind S. Breast cancer: missed interval and screening-detected cancer at full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography-results from a retrospective review. Radiology 2012;264(2):378-386.
21. Nothacker M, Duda V, Hahn M, et al. Early detection of breast cancer: benefits and risks of supplemental breast ultrasound in asymptomatic women with mammographically dense breast tissue-a systematic review. BMC Cancer 2009;9:335.
22. Weigel S, Biesheuvel C, Berkemeyer S, Kugel H, Heindel W. Digital mammography screening: how many breast cancers are additionally detected by bilateral ultrasound examination during assessment? Eur Radiol 2013;23(3):684-691.
23. American College of Radiology. BI-RADSmammography. In: Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Atlas (BI-RADS Atlas). 4th ed. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology, 2003.
24. Huynh PT, Jarolimek AM, Daye S. The false-negative mammogram. RadioGraphics 1998;18(5):1137-1154; quiz 1243-1244.
25. Moon WK, Noh DY, Im JG. Multifocal, multicentric, and contralateral breast cancers: bilateral whole-breast US in the preoperative evaluation of patients. Radiology 2002;224(2):569-576.
26. Bassett LW, Hoyt AC, Oshiro T. Digital mammography: clinical image evaluation. Radiol Clin North Am 2010;48(5):903-915.
27. Giess CS, Frost EP, Birdwell RL. Difficulties and errors in diagnosis of breast neoplasms. Semin Ultrasound CT MRI 2012;33(4):288-299.
28. Hofvind S, Skaane P, Vitak B, et al. Influence of review design on percentages of missed interval breast cancers: retrospective study of interval cancers in a populationbased screening program. Radiology 2005;237(2):437-443.
29. Ciatto S, Catarzi S, Lamberini MP, et al. Interval breast cancers in screening: the effect of mammography review method on classification. Breast 2007;16(6):646-652.
30. Schrading S, Kuhl CK. Mammographic, US, and MR imaging phenotypes of familial breast cancer. Radiology 2008;246(1):58-70.
31. Weigert J, Steenbergen S. The Connecticut experiment: the role of ultrasound in the screening of women with dense breasts. Breast J 2012;18(6):517-522.
32. Kopans DB, Monsees B, Feig SA. Screening for cancer: when is it valid? lessons from the mammography experience. Radiology 2003;229(2):319-327.