Volume 15 Supplement 1

British Society of Breast Radiology Annual Scientific Meeting 2013

Open Access

PB.41: Audit of screening-detected breast cancers with discordant interpretations on double-read screening mammography

  • B Batohi1,
  • R Rahim1,
  • M Adejolu1 and
  • M Michell1
Breast Cancer Research201315(Suppl 1):P41

https://doi.org/10.1186/bcr3541

Published: 8 November 2013

Introduction

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusion

A total 8.5% of the screen-detected cancers in this audit were discordant-read cancers, which corresponds with published findings [1]. The mammographic features of discordant cancers were similar to nondiscordant cancers. The study supports the continued use of two readers to maximise sensitivity [2].

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
King's College Hospital

References

  1. 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
  2. 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

Copyright

© Batohi et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2013

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.

Advertisement