American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol 161, 1167-1172, Copyright © 1993 by American Roentgen Ray Society

ARTICLES

Previous mammograms in patients with impalpable breast carcinoma: retrospective vs blinded interpretation. 1993 ARRS President's Award

JA Harvey, LL Fajardo and CA Innis
Department of Radiology, University of Arizona and University Medical Center, Tucson 85724.

OBJECTIVE. We examined differences between blinded and retrospective reviews of screening mammograms obtained before a mammogram that resulted in the diagnosis of an impalpable breast carcinoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS. We reviewed 152 previous mammograms in 73 patients in whom impalpable breast carcinomas were subsequently detected on later mammograms. The earlier studies were interpreted in two ways: (1) blindly (without knowledge that carcinoma was subsequently detected) and (2) retrospectively (with the mammogram showing the carcinoma for comparison). The two interpretations were then compared with regard to the presence of carcinoma, recommendations for biopsy, parenchymal density, histologic characteristics of the tumor, lymph node status, and film quality. RESULTS. When we did a blinded review of the mammograms obtained before the diagnostic mammograms, the previous study was interpreted as showing evidence of carcinoma in 30 patients (41%). For the remaining 43 patients (59%), the findings of the most- recent previous mammogram were interpreted as normal or benign by the blinded reviewers; however, the retrospective reviewers thought evidence of cancer was visible in 25 of these patients (34%). Differences between blinded and retrospective interpretations were statistically significant. In patients in whom evidence of tumor was thought to be present on retrospective review but not on blinded review, the majority of mammographic abnormalities were asymmetric densities on the most-recent previous examination. This was true whether or not the retrospective reviewers thought that the mammographic finding warranted earlier biopsy. The histologic characteristics and lymph node status among patients in whom mammograms were interpreted retrospectively as showing evidence of tumor were no different from those among patients with no evidence of tumor. CONCLUSION. Our results show that impalpable breast carcinomas are frequently evident in retrospect on previous mammograms. However, because many are manifested only as an asymmetric density, these may not necessarily be true radiologic errors. Failure to detect a retrospectively visible abnormality on a screening mammogram is not necessarily negligent, and retrospective reviews do not reflect the everyday practice of screening mammography.
CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				W. A. Berg and E. B. Mendelson Ultrasound and Mammography for Breast Cancer Screening--Reply JAMA, October 1, 2008; 300(13): 1515 - 1515. [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. Singh, S. Sethi, M. Raber, and L. A. Petersen Errors in Cancer Diagnosis: Current Understanding and Future Directions J. Clin. Oncol., November 1, 2007; 25(31): 5009 - 5018. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. Berlin Radiologic Errors and Malpractice: A Blurry Distinction Am. J. Roentgenol., September 1, 2007; 189(3): 517 - 522. [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. Berlin Accuracy of Diagnostic Procedures: Has It Improved Over the Past Five Decades? Am. J. Roentgenol., May 1, 2007; 188(5): 1173 - 1178. [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. MINIGH Mammographic Film Artifacts. Radiol. Technol., May 1, 2006; 77(5): 389M - 402M. [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]

				J. G. Elmore, K. Armstrong, C. D. Lehman, and S. W. Fletcher Screening for Breast Cancer JAMA, March 9, 2005; 293(10): 1245 - 1256. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. F. Brem, J. W. Hoffmeister, G. Zisman, M. P. DeSimio, and S. K. Rogers A Computer-Aided Detection System for the Evaluation of Breast Cancer by Mammographic Appearance and Lesion Size Am. J. Roentgenol., March 1, 2005; 184(3): 893 - 896. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. A. Helvie, L. Hadjiiski, E. Makariou, H.-P. Chan, N. Petrick, B. Sahiner, S.-C. B. Lo, M. Freedman, D. Adler, J. Bailey, et al. Sensitivity of Noncommercial Computer-aided Detection System for Mammographic Breast Cancer Detection: Pilot Clinical Trial Radiology, April 1, 2004; 231(1): 208 - 214. [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]

				R. F. Brem, J. Baum, M. Lechner, S. Kaplan, S. Souders, L. G. Naul, and J. Hoffmeister Improvement in Sensitivity of Screening Mammography with Computer-Aided Detection: A Multiinstitutional Trial Am. J. Roentgenol., September 1, 2003; 181(3): 687 - 693. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. Zheng, L. A. Hardesty, W. R. Poller, J. H. Sumkin, and S. Golla Mammography with Computer-aided Detection: Reproducibility Assessment—Initial Experience Radiology, July 1, 2003; 228(1): 58 - 62. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. S. Majid, E. S. de Paredes, R. D. Doherty, N. R. Sharma, and X. Salvador Missed Breast Carcinoma: Pitfalls and Pearls RadioGraphics, July 1, 2003; 23(4): 881 - 895. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				N. Karssemeijer, J. D. M. Otten, A. L. M. Verbeek, J. H. Groenewoud, H. J. de Koning, J. H. C. L. Hendriks, and R. Holland Computer-aided Detection versus Independent Double Reading of Masses on Mammograms Radiology, April 1, 2003; 227(1): 192 - 200. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				W. P. Evans, L. J. Warren Burhenne, L. Laurie, K. F. O'Shaughnessy, and R. A. Castellino Invasive Lobular Carcinoma of the Breast: Mammographic Characteristics and Computer-aided Detection Radiology, October 1, 2002; 225(1): 182 - 189. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. L. McKnight, J. L. Kugel, P. J. Rossman, A. Manduca, L. C. Hartmann, and R. L. Ehman MR Elastography of Breast Cancer: Preliminary Results Am. J. Roentgenol., June 1, 2002; 178(6): 1411 - 1417. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. F. Nodine, C. Mello-Thoms, S. P. Weinstein, H. L. Kundel, E. F. Conant, R. E. Heller-Savoy, S. E. Rowlings, and J. A. Birnbaum Blinded Review of Retrospectively Visible Unreported Breast Cancers: An Eye-Position Analysis Radiology, October 1, 2001; 221(1): 122 - 129. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. W. Freer and M. J. Ulissey Screening Mammography with Computer-aided Detection: Prospective Study of 12,860 Patients in a Community Breast Center Radiology, September 1, 2001; 220(3): 781 - 786. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. L. Birdwell, D. M. Ikeda, K. F. O’Shaughnessy, and E. A. Sickles Mammographic Characteristics of 115 Missed Cancers Later Detected with Screening Mammography and the Potential Utility of Computer-aided Detection Radiology, April 1, 2001; 219(1): 192 - 202. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				J R Benson, A D Purushotham, R Warren, C. I F Rooney, L. C Rodrigues, O. M R Campbell, D V Coleman, R. W M Giard, and R. M Wilson Screening and litigation BMJ, September 23, 2000; 321(7263): 760 - 760. [Full Text]

				C. J. Vyborny, T. Doi, K. F. O'Shaughnessy, H. M. Romsdahl, A. C. Schneider, and A. A. Stein Breast Cancer: Importance of Spiculation in Computer-aided Detection Radiology, June 1, 2000; 215(3): 703 - 707. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				W. A. Berg, C. Campassi, P. Langenberg, and M. J. Sexton Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: Inter- and Intraobserver Variability in Feature Analysis and Final Assessment Am. J. Roentgenol., June 1, 2000; 174(6): 1769 - 1777. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				L. J. Warren Burhenne, S. A. Wood, C. J. D'Orsi, S. A. Feig, D. B. Kopans, K. F. O'Shaughnessy, E. A. Sickles, L. Tabar, C. J. Vyborny, and R. A. Castellino Potential Contribution of Computer-aided Detection to the Sensitivity of Screening Mammography Radiology, May 1, 2000; 215(2): 554 - 562. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				H. M. Zonderland, E. G. Coerkamp, J. Hermans, M. J. van de Vijver, and A. E. van Voorthuisen Diagnosis of Breast Cancer: Contribution of US as an Adjunct to Mammography Radiology, November 1, 1999; 213(2): 413 - 422. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				E. Rubin Six-month Follow-up: An Alternative View Radiology, October 1, 1999; 213(1): 15 - 18. [Full Text]