Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Burrell, H.
Right arrow Articles by Robertson, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Burrell, H.
Right arrow Articles by Robertson, J.

Radiology, Vol 199, 811-817, Copyright © 1996 by Radiological Society of North America


ARTICLES

Screening interval breast cancers: mammographic features and prognosis factors

HC Burrell, DM Sibbering, AR Wilson, SE Pinder, AJ Evans, LJ Yeoman, CW Elston, IO Ellis, RW Blamey and JF Robertson
Department of Radiology, City Hospital, Nottingham, England.

PURPOSE: To review the mammographic features of screening interval breast cancers and to compare the tumor size, histologic grade, and lymph node involvement with those in screening-detected and unscreened symptomatic cancers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Screening mammography was performed in 72,773 women aged 50-64 years. Ninety interval cancers were identified in 89 women. The mammographic and histopathologic features of these cancers were analyzed. RESULTS: At review of the screening mammograms, interval cancers were classified into four groups: 51 true-positive, 20 false-negative, seven mammographically occult, and 12 unclassified. The most common missed abnormality in the false-negative cases was architectural distortion. Interval cancers were larger, of higher grade, and more likely to have lymph node involvement than screening-detected tumors and were of similar size, histologic grade, and stage of lymph node involvement as symptomatic tumors. CONCLUSION: Prognosis in interval cancers is similar to that in symptomatic, unscreened tumors and statistically significantly worse than that in screening-detected cancers.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
A. A. Luck, A. J. Evans, J. J. James, E. A. Rakha, E. C. Paish, A. R. Green, and I. O. Ellis
Breast Carcinoma with Basal Phenotype: Mammographic Findings
Am. J. Roentgenol., August 1, 2008; 191(2): 346 - 351.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Clin. Cancer Res.Home page
H. Sihto, J. Lundin, T. Lehtimaki, M. Sarlomo-Rikala, R. Butzow, K. Holli, L. Sailas, V. Kataja, M. Lundin, T. Turpeenniemi-Hujanen, et al.
Molecular Subtypes of Breast Cancers Detected in Mammography Screening and Outside of Screening
Clin. Cancer Res., July 1, 2008; 14(13): 4103 - 4110.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev.Home page
A. M. Chiarelli, V. A. Kirsh, N. S. Klar, R. Shumak, R. Jong, E. Fishell, M. J. Yaffe, and N. F. Boyd
Influence of patterns of hormone replacement therapy use and mammographic density on breast cancer detection.
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., October 1, 2006; 15(10): 1856 - 1862.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev.Home page
K. Collett, I. M. Stefansson, J. Eide, A. Braaten, H. Wang, G. E. Eide, S. O. Thoresen, W. D. Foulkes, and L. A. Akslen
A Basal Epithelial Phenotype Is More Frequent in Interval Breast Cancers Compared with Screen Detected Tumors
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., May 1, 2005; 14(5): 1108 - 1112.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
J. A. Baker, J. Y. Lo, D. M. Delong, and C. E. Floyd
Computer-aided Detection in Screening Mammography: Variability in Cues
Radiology, November 1, 2004; 233(2): 411 - 417.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadioGraphicsHome page
M. Mahesh
AAPM/RSNA Physics Tutorial for Residents: Digital Mammography: An Overview
RadioGraphics, November 1, 2004; 24(6): 1747 - 1760.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JAMAHome page
H. Joensuu, T. Lehtimaki, K. Holli, L. Elomaa, T. Turpeenniemi-Hujanen, V. Kataja, A. Anttila, M. Lundin, J. Isola, and J. Lundin
Risk for Distant Recurrence of Breast Cancer Detected by Mammography Screening or Other Methods
JAMA, September 1, 2004; 292(9): 1064 - 1073.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
J. A. Baker, E. L. Rosen, J. Y. Lo, E. I. Gimenez, R. Walsh, and M. S. Soo
Computer-Aided Detection (CAD) in Screening Mammography: Sensitivity of Commercial CAD Systems for Detecting Architectural Distortion
Am. J. Roentgenol., October 1, 2003; 181(4): 1083 - 1088.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadioGraphicsHome page
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]


Home page
Br. J. Radiol.Home page
S Meeson, K C Young, M G Wallis, J Cooke, A Cummin, and M L Ramsdale
Image features of true positive and false negative cancers in screening mammograms
Br. J. Radiol., January 1, 2003; 76(901): 13 - 21.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
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]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
R. J. Brenner, L. W. Bassett, L. L. Fajardo, D. D. Dershaw, W. P. Evans III, R. Hunt, C. Lee, I. Tocino, P. Fisher, M. McCombs, et al.
Stereotactic Core-Needle Breast Biopsy: A Multi-institutional Prospective Trial
Radiology, March 1, 2001; 218(3): 866 - 872.
[Abstract] [Full Text]


Home page
JNCI J Natl Cancer InstHome page
M. T. Mandelson, N. Oestreicher, P. L. Porter, D. White, C. A. Finder, S. H. Taplin, and E. White
Breast Density as a Predictor of Mammographic Detection: Comparison of Interval- and Screen-Detected Cancers
J Natl Cancer Inst, July 5, 2000; 92(13): 1081 - 1087.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
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]


Home page
JNCI J Natl Cancer InstHome page
F. D. Gilliland, N. Joste, P. M. Stauber, W. C. Hunt, R. Rosenberg, G. Redlich, and C. R. Key
Biologic Characteristics of Interval and Screen-Detected Breast Cancers
J Natl Cancer Inst, May 3, 2000; 92(9): 743 - 749.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Clin. Pathol.Home page
W K Cowan, B Angus, J C Gray, L G Lunt, and S R. Al-Tamimi
A study of interval breast cancer within the NHS breast screening programme
J. Clin. Pathol., February 1, 2000; 53(2): 140 - 146.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
E. D. Pisano
Current Status of Full-Field Digital Mammography1
Radiology, January 1, 2000; 214(1): 26 - 28.
[Full Text]


Home page
Clin. Cancer Res.Home page
M. Crosier, D. Scott, R. G. Wilson, C. D. M. Griffiths, F. E. B. May, and B. R. Westley
Differences in Ki67 and c-erbB2 Expression between Screen-detected and True Interval Breast Cancers
Clin. Cancer Res., October 1, 1999; 5(10): 2682 - 2688.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 1996 by the Radiological Society of North America.