Screening mammography: clinical image quality and the risk of interval breast cancer.

OBJECTIVE We evaluated the association between clinical image quality and breast cancer occurrence within 24 months of a negative mammogram. MATERIALS AND METHODS We identified women with breast cancer who were younger than 40 years old and older and screened from January 1, 1988, through December 31, 1993. We retrospectively assigned Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) assessments to their screening mammogram. We classified cancers (invasive or ductal in situ) as "screen-detected" when found after positive assessments (BI-RADS codes 3, 4, and 5) and "interval-detected" when found after negative assessments (BI-RADS codes 1 and 2). One reviewer evaluated mediolateral oblique and craniocaudal views for all cancer cases using a 3-point scale (failure, borderline, pass) for each measure of clinical image quality (positioning, breast compression, contrast, exposure, noise, sharpness, artifacts, overall quality). We used separate logistic regression models and evaluated the odds of interval invasive cancer or invasive plus in situ cancer as a function of each measure of quality using "pass" as the referent group. RESULTS We found 492 screen-detected and 164 interval-detected cancers that met study criteria. Cancer detection (sensitivity) was highest (84%) among patients with proper breast positioning, but when images failed this measure (33.4%), sensitivity fell to 66.3%. After adjustment for age, film date, and breast density, interval-detected invasive cancers were more likely after images failing positioning (odds ratio, 2.57; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-5.52%). Failures in overall quality were also associated with interval cancers when cases of ductal carcinoma in situ (p = 0.037) were included. CONCLUSION Invasive breast cancer detection by mammography may be improved through attention to correct positioning.

[1]  A. Miller,et al.  Canadian National Breast Screening Study: assessment of technical quality by external review. , 1990, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[2]  G. Sakorafas,et al.  Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast: evolving perspectives. , 2000, Cancer treatment reviews.

[3]  Robert S. Thompson,et al.  Cost effectiveness in program delivery , 1989, Cancer.

[4]  L. Philpotts,et al.  Screening for breast cancer. , 2003, Seminars in roentgenology.

[5]  B. Rush,et al.  Interval breast cancer: a more aggressive subset of breast neoplasias. , 1983, Surgery.

[6]  K. Kerlikowske,et al.  Effect of age, breast density, and family history on the sensitivity of first screening mammography. , 1996, JAMA.

[7]  L. Bassett Clinical image evaluation. , 1995, Radiologic clinics of North America.

[8]  D. Ikeda,et al.  Interval carcinomas in the Malmö Mammographic Screening Trial: radiographic appearance and prognostic considerations. , 1992, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[9]  R. Bird,et al.  Analysis of cancers missed at screening mammography. , 1992, Radiology.

[10]  D. Fournier,et al.  Growth rate of 147 mammary carcinomas , 1980, Cancer.

[11]  R. Hendrick,et al.  Quality control in mammography. , 1995, Radiologic clinics of North America.

[12]  G. W. Eklund,et al.  The art of mammographic positioning. , 1992, Radiologic clinics of North America.

[13]  E. Wagner,et al.  Mammography diffusion and trends in late-stage breast cancer: evaluating outcomes in a population. , 1997, Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology.

[14]  K C Young,et al.  Mammographic film density and detection of small breast cancers. , 1994, Clinical radiology.

[15]  L W Bassett,et al.  Mammographic positioning: evaluation from the view box. , 1993, Radiology.

[16]  J. Spratt,et al.  The association of pathologic and mammographic characteristics of primary human breast cancers with “slow” and “fast” growth rates and with axillary lymph node metastases , 1984 .

[17]  P. Porter,et al.  Breast tumor characteristics as predictors of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. , 1999, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[18]  The association of pathologic and mammographic characteristics of primary human breast cancers with "slow" and "fast" growth rates and with axillary lymph node metastases. , 1984, Cancer.

[19]  G Cardenosa,et al.  Assessing adequacy of mammographic image quality. , 1994, Radiology.

[20]  R. Hendrick,et al.  Improvement in mammography quality control: 1987-1995. , 1998, Radiology.

[21]  Roland Holland,et al.  The current detectability of breast cancer in a mammographic screening program. A review of the previous mammograms of interval and screen‐detected cancers , 1993, Cancer.

[22]  R Holland,et al.  Mammographically occult breast cancer: A pathologic and radiologic study , 1983, Cancer.

[23]  J. Mandelblatt,et al.  Continuity of care and the use of breast and cervical cancer screening services in a multiethnic community. , 1997, Archives of internal medicine.

[24]  C. Brekelmans,et al.  Histopathology and growth rate of interval breast carcinoma: Characterization of different subgroups , 1996, Cancer.

[25]  M. Moskowitz,et al.  Breast cancer missed by mammography. , 1979, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[26]  R. Thompson,et al.  A clinically effective breast cancer screening program can be cost-effective, too. , 1987, Preventive medicine.

[27]  H. Thornton,et al.  Ductal carcinoma-in-situ of the breast , 1992, The Lancet.

[28]  P. Porter,et al.  Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. , 2000, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[29]  M. Brown,et al.  The impact of mammography quality improvement legislation in Michigan: implications for the National Mammography Quality Standards Act. , 1998, American journal of public health.

[30]  N. Boyd,et al.  Case-control study of factors associated with failure to detect breast cancer by mammography. , 1992, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.