False-negative breast screening assessment: what lessons can we learn?

AIM To review women who have had breast cancer diagnosed following previous assessment of a screen-detected mammographic abnormality in order to ascertain the frequency and characteristics of false-negative assessment. MATERIALS AND METHODS The assessment process was reviewed in the study population of 28 women. This included the nature of the lesion recalled for assessment, additional mammography, clinical and ultrasound findings, and the results of fine needle aspiration cytology and needle histology. RESULTS The frequency of false-negative assessment was approximately 0.56%. The median time between false-negative assessment and diagnosis of breast cancer was 33 months. The most common mammographic lesion resulting in false-negative assessment was micro-calcification seen in 12 cases (43%). Only five of these 12 cases had image-guided biopsy, the remainder were thought to be benign on magnification views. Other mammographic abnormalities were nine masses (32%), five architectural distortions (18%) and two asymmetric densities (7%). Of the 16 women with mammographic lesions other than micro-calcifications 10 had a normal ultrasound. CONCLUSION Radiological interpretation of indeterminate micro-calcifications as benign or malignant is unreliable. An isolated cluster of micro-calcification requires image-guided core biopsy with representative micro-calcification obtained on specimen radiography. Further mammography done at assessment, particularly paddle compression views, should be carefully analysed to ensure areas of architectural distortion have truly resolved. If one imaging modality shows a significant abnormality and another does not the cases must be managed on the basis of the abnormal finding. Burrell, H.C.et al. (2001). Clinical Radiology56, 385-388.

[1]  A. Wilson,et al.  Short-term recall for 'probably benign' mammographic lesions detected in a three yearly screening programme. , 1994, Clinical radiology.

[2]  R. Blamey,et al.  A prognostic index in primary breast cancer. , 1982, British Journal of Cancer.

[3]  I. Ellis,et al.  Digital imaging improves upright stereotactic core biopsy of mammographic microcalcifications. , 2000, Clinical radiology.

[4]  S. Ciatto,et al.  The detectability of breast cancer by screening mammography. , 1995, British Journal of Cancer.

[5]  L J Yeoman,et al.  Screening interval breast cancers: mammographic features and prognosis factors. , 1996, Radiology.

[6]  I. Ellis,et al.  Pathological-radiological correlations in benign lesions excised during a breast screening programme. , 1994, Clinical radiology.

[7]  F J Gilbert,et al.  Incident round cancers: what lessons can we learn? , 1998, Clinical radiology.

[8]  Bruno D. Fornage Ultrasound of the Breast , 1989, Seminars in ultrasound, CT, and MR.

[9]  R Holland,et al.  So‐called interval cancers of the breast: Pathologic and radiologic analysis of sixty‐four cases , 1982, Cancer.

[10]  I. Ellis,et al.  Mammographic and pathological features of breast cancer detected at first incident round screening , 1997 .

[11]  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.

[12]  S Field,et al.  Second round cancers: how many were visible on the first round of the UK National Breast Screening Programme, three years earlier? , 1998, Clinical radiology.

[13]  L. J. Burhenne,et al.  Interval breast cancers in the Screening Mammography Program of British Columbia: analysis and classification. , 1994, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[14]  I. Ellis,et al.  Mammographic features of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) present on previous mammography. , 1999, Clinical radiology.

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

[16]  W. Simpson,et al.  Proportion of cancers detected at the first incident screen which were false negative at the prevalent screen , 1996 .