HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 2262011634v1 226/2/494    most recent Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Ikeda, D. M. Articles by Sickles, E. A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Ikeda, D. M. Articles by Sickles, E. A.

Analysis of 172 Subtle Findings on Prior Normal Mammograms in Women with Breast Cancer Detected at Follow-up Screening¹

¹ From the Department of Radiology, Stanford University Medical Center, Rm S-068A, 300 Pasteur Dr, Stanford, CA 94305-5105 (D.M.I., R.L.B.); R2Technology, Sunnyvale, Calif (K.F.O.); Tower–St Johns Imaging Eisenberg Keefer Breast Center, John Wayne Cancer Institute, St John’s Health Center, Santa Monica, Calif (R.J.B.); and Department of Radiology, University of California, San Francisco (E.A.S.). From the 1999 RSNA scientific assembly. Received October 5, 2001; revision requested December 18; revision received March 14, 2002; accepted July 24. Address correspondence to D.M.I.

PURPOSE: To retrospectively review nonspecific findings on prior screening mammograms to determine what features were most often deemed normal or benign despite the development of breast cancer in the same location detected at follow-up screening.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four hundred ninety-three pairs of consecutive mammographic findings were collected from 13 institutions, consisting of initial normal screening findings and a subsequent finding of cancer at screening (mean interval between examinations, 14.6 months). One designated radiologist reviewed each pair of mammograms and determined that 286 findings were judged visible at prior examination in locations where cancer later developed. Five blinded radiologists independently reviewed the prior findings in these 286 cases, identifying 169 mammograms (172 cancers) with findings so subtle that none or only one or two of the five radiologists recommended screening recall. Two unblinded radiologists reviewed the initial and subsequent findings and recorded descriptors and assessments for each finding and subjective factors influencing why, although the lesion was perceptible, it might have been undetected or not recalled.

RESULTS: Of 172 cancers, 129 (75%) were invasive (112 T1 tumors and 17 T2 tumors or higher; median diameter, 10 mm), and 43 (25%) were ductal carcinoma in situ (median size, 10 mm). On the prior mammograms, 80% (137 of 172) of these cancers had subtle nonspecific findings where cancer later developed, and most were assessed as being normal or benign in appearance.

CONCLUSION: There is a subset of cancers that display perceptible but nonspecific mammographic findings that do not warrant recall, as judged by both a majority of blinded radiologists and by unblinded reviewers. We believe failure to act on these nonspecific findings prospectively does not necessarily constitute interpretation below a reasonable standard of care.

© RSNA, 2003

Index terms: Breast neoplasms, diagnosis, 00.32, 00.30

This article has been cited by other articles:

				P. Skaane, S. Hofvind, and A. Skjennald Randomized Trial of Screen-Film versus Full-Field Digital Mammography with Soft-Copy Reading in Population-based Screening Program: Follow-up and Final Results of Oslo II Study Radiology, September 1, 2007; 244(3): 708 - 717. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. J. Morton, D. H. Whaley, K. R. Brandt, and K. K. Amrami Screening Mammograms: Interpretation with Computer-aided Detection--Prospective Evaluation Radiology, May 1, 2006; 239(2): 375 - 383. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. J. Brenner, M. J. Ulissey, and R. M. Wilt Computer-Aided Detection as Evidence in the Courtroom: Potential Implications of an Appellate Court's Ruling Am. J. Roentgenol., January 1, 2006; 186(1): 48 - 51. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. M. Ikeda, R. L. Birdwell, K. F. O'Shaughnessy, E. A. Sickles, and R. J. Brenner Computer-aided Detection Output on 172 Subtle Findings on Normal Mammograms Previously Obtained in Women with Breast Cancer Detected at Follow-Up Screening Mammography Radiology, March 1, 2004; 230(3): 811 - 819. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. Berlin, D. M. Ikeda, R. L. Birdwell, K. F. O'Shaughnessy, R. J. Brenner, and E. A. Sickles Missed Mammographic Abnormalities, Malpractice, and Expert Witnesses: Does Majority Rule in the Courtroom? [letter] * Dr Ikeda and colleagues respond: Radiology, October 1, 2003; 229(1): 288 - 289. [Full Text] [PDF]