- Poster presentation
- Open Access
PB.41: Audit of screening-detected breast cancers with discordant interpretations on double-read screening mammography
© Batohi et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2013
- Published: 8 November 2013
- Breast Cancer
- Screening Mammography
- Screen Programme
- Histology Result
- Consensus Meeting
Discordant breast cancers are identified following differing interpretations on double-read screening mammograms. The aim of this audit was to analyse the mammographic features of discordant breast cancers to improve reader sensitivity.
The screening programme database was used to identify all breast cancers that were diagnosed from 1 April 2010 to 31 March 2012. Discordant cases were reviewed at a consensus meeting in which the mammographic sign, size, site, parenchymal pattern and final histology were recorded.
Fifty-seven of a total of 670 cancers had discordant reads. The most common mammographic abnormality was spiculated masses (30%). Microcalcifications accounted for 25% of cases. Eighty-five per cent of the abnormalities were small (i.e. ≤15 mm). No single view was noted to be more likely to reveal the abnormality. The histology results showed no difference in distribution of tumour type compared with nondiscordant tumours. The second reader identified 69% of the discordant cancers.
A total 8.5% of the screen-detected cancers in this audit were discordant-read cancers, which corresponds with published findings . The mammographic features of discordant cancers were similar to nondiscordant cancers. The study supports the continued use of two readers to maximise sensitivity .
- Cornford EJ, et al: The pathological and radiological features of screen-detected breast cancers diagnosed following arbitration of discordant double reading opinions. Clin Radiol. 2005, 60: 1182-1187. 10.1016/j.crad.2005.06.003.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Hackshaw AK, Wald NJ, Michell MJ, Field S, Wilson AR: An investigation into why two-view mammography is better than one-view in breast cancer screening. Clin Radiol. 2000, 55: 454-458. 10.1053/crad.2000.0448.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.