Volume 15 Supplement 1

British Society of Breast Radiology Annual Scientific Meeting 2013

Open Access

PB.44: Audit of interval cancers from family history breast screening

  • R Dunn1,
  • S Astley1,
  • M Bydder2,
  • DG Evans1, 2,
  • A Howell1, 2,
  • J Sergeant1, 2 and
  • AJ Maxwell2
Breast Cancer Research201315(Suppl 1):P44

https://doi.org/10.1186/bcr3544

Published: 8 November 2013

Introduction

A total of 267 women screened by the family history clinic (FHC) have been diagnosed with breast cancer since 1990. In 73 women the cancers were diagnosed in the interval between mammographic screens, which were performed every 1 to 2 years and single read. The aim of this audit was to compare performance with that of the NHS Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP).

Methods

Screening mammograms were found for 21 women, who had 22 interval cancers (one was bilateral). Thirteen had symptomatic mammograms available for comparison. The site of the cancer was known for eight of the remaining nine cases. Blinded review of the screening mammograms was performed and then comparison was made with the symptomatic mammograms or other available location data.

Results

The screening mammograms were classified as follows: Category 0 (no symptomatic mammograms available), 9; Category 1 (screening mammograms normal), 7; Category 2A (subtle appearances, recall not justified), 2; Category 2B (subtle appearances, recall indicated), 2; and Category 3 (suspicious abnormality), 2. Of the eight Category 0 cases with a known tumour location, a subtle abnormality was visible in this area in one case but the remainder were normal. Thus the screening mammograms were normal in 14 of the 21 cases (67%) where the tumour location was known. Fifteen (68%) of the interval cancers were diagnosed within 12 months of the last mammogram.

Conclusion

The proportion of Category 2 and 3 cases is similar to that seen in the NHSBSP. Double reading may reduce the number of these in the FHC population.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
University of Manchester
(2)
Nightingale Centre and Genesis Prevention Centre, University Hospital of South Manchester

Copyright

© Dunn 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