Advertisement

The evaluation of false negative mammography from malignant and benign breast lesions

  • Jane Wang
    Affiliations
    Department of Medical Imaging, National Taiwan University Hospital, 7 Chung-Shan South Road, Taipei 100, Taiwan
    Search for articles by this author
  • Tiffany Ting-Fang Shih
    Correspondence
    Corresponding author. Department of Medical Imaging, National Taiwan University Hospital, 7 Chung-Shan South Road, Taipei 100, Taiwan
    Affiliations
    Department of Medical Imaging, National Taiwan University Hospital, 7 Chung-Shan South Road, Taipei 100, Taiwan

    Department of Radiology, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taiwan
    Search for articles by this author
  • Jane Chien-Yao Hsu
    Affiliations
    Department of Medical Imaging, National Taiwan University Hospital, 7 Chung-Shan South Road, Taipei 100, Taiwan

    Department of Radiology, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taiwan
    Search for articles by this author
  • Yiu-Wah Li
    Affiliations
    Department of Medical Imaging, National Taiwan University Hospital, 7 Chung-Shan South Road, Taipei 100, Taiwan

    Department of Radiology, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taiwan
    Search for articles by this author

      Abstract

      Preoperative mammograms from 395 breast cancers and 132 benign breast lesions were enrolled for this study. The false-negative (FN) rate for breast cancers from preoperative reading was 9.6% with 38 breast cancers missed on mammograms. The statistically significant differences occurred between true-positive (TP) and FN cancers for younger age (P<.025), smaller lesion size (P<.001), denser breast (P<.05), deep retroglandular location (P<.001). None of the FN cancers exhibited calcifications. The FN rate for mammography for benign breast lesions from preoperative reading was 18.9% with 25 lesions misdiagnosed. The statistically significant difference between benign TP and FN lesions occurred for central and subareolar location (P<.025). Exploration of possible factors and imaging features in FN mammograms can help reduce the FN rate for mammography.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Clinical Imaging
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Bird RE
        • Wallace TW
        • Yankaskas BC
        Analysis of cancers missed at screening mammography.
        Radiology. 1992; 184: 613-617
        • Huynh PT
        • Jarolimek AM
        • Daye S
        The false-negative mammogram.
        RadioGraphics. 1998; 18: 1137-1154
        • Goergen SK
        • Evans J
        • Cohen GPB
        • et al.
        Characteristics of breast carcinomas missed by screening radiologists.
        Radiology. 1997; 204: 131-135
        • Holland R
        • Hendriks JHCL
        • Marvunac M
        • et al.
        Mammographically occult breast cancer: a pathologic and radiologic study.
        Cancer. 1983; 52: 1810-1819
        • Martin JE
        • Moskowitz M
        • Milbrath JR
        Breast cancer missed by mammography.
        Am J Roentgenol. 1979; 132: 737-739
        • Mann BD
        • Giuliano AE
        • Bassett LW
        • et al.
        Delayed diagnosis of breast cancer as a result of normal mammograms.
        Arch Surg. 1983; 118: 23-24
        • Wallis MG
        • Walsh MT
        • Lee JR
        A review of false negative mammography in a symptomatic population.
        Clin Radiol. 1991; 44: 13-15
        • Kalisher L
        Factors influencing false negative rates in xeromammography.
        Radiology. 1979; 133: 297-301
        • Feig SA
        • Shaber GS
        • Patchefsky A
        • et al.
        Analysis of clinically occult and mammographically occult breast tumors.
        Am J Roentgenol. 1977; 128: 403-408
        • Cahill CJ
        • Boulter PS
        • Gibbs NM
        • et al.
        Features of mammographically negative breast tumors.
        Br J Surg. 1981; 68: 882-884
        • Bassett LW
        • Jahan R
        • Fu YS
        • et al.
        Diagnosis of Diseases of the Breast. 1st edn. Saunders, PA1997: 447-448
        • Kopans DB
        Breast Imaging. 2nd edn. Lippincott-Raven, PA1998: 388
        • Kopans DB
        Breast Imaging. 2nd edn. Lippincott-Raven, PA1998: 245
        • Ciatto S
        • Turco MRD
        • Morrone D
        • et al.
        Independent double reading of screening mammograms.
        J Med Screening. 1995; 2: 99-101
        • Linver MN
        • Paster SB
        • Rosenberg RD
        • et al.
        Improvement in mammography interpretation skills in a community radiology practice after dedicated teaching courses: 2-year medical audit of 38.633 cases.
        Radiology. 1992; 184: 39-43
        • Thurfjell EL
        • Lernevall KA
        • Taube AA
        Benefit of independent double reading in a population-based mammography screening program.
        Radiology. 1994; 191: 241-244
        • Hulka CA
        • Slanetz PJ
        • Halpern EF
        • et al.
        Patients' opinion of mammography screening services: immediate results versus delayed results due to interpretation by two observers.
        Am J Roentgenol. 1997; 168: 1085-1089
        • Brown J
        • Bryan S
        • Warren R
        Mammography screening: an incremental cost effectiveness analysis of double versus single reading of mammograms.
        Br Med J. 1996; 312: 809-812
        • Knight JA
        • Libstug AR
        • Moravan V
        • et al.
        An assessment of the influence of clinical breast examination reports on the interpretation of mammograms in a breast screening program.
        Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1998; 48: 65-71