Ikeda Debra M, Birdwell Robyn L, O'Shaughnessy Kathryn F, Brenner R James, Sickles Edward A
Department of Radiology, Stanford University Medical Center, Rm S-068A, 300 Pasteur Dr, Stanford, CA 94305-5105, USA.
Radiology. 2003 Feb;226(2):494-503. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2262011634.
To retrospectively review nonspecific findings on prior screening mammograms to determine what features were most often deemed normal or benign despite the development of breast cancer in the same location detected at follow-up screening.
Four hundred ninety-three pairs of consecutive mammographic findings were collected from 13 institutions, consisting of initial normal screening findings and a subsequent finding of cancer at screening (mean interval between examinations, 14.6 months). One designated radiologist reviewed each pair of mammograms and determined that 286 findings were judged visible at prior examination in locations where cancer later developed. Five blinded radiologists independently reviewed the prior findings in these 286 cases, identifying 169 mammograms (172 cancers) with findings so subtle that none or only one or two of the five radiologists recommended screening recall. Two unblinded radiologists reviewed the initial and subsequent findings and recorded descriptors and assessments for each finding and subjective factors influencing why, although the lesion was perceptible, it might have been undetected or not recalled.
Of 172 cancers, 129 (75%) were invasive (112 T1 tumors and 17 T2 tumors or higher; median diameter, 10 mm), and 43 (25%) were ductal carcinoma in situ (median size, 10 mm). On the prior mammograms, 80% (137 of 172) of these cancers had subtle nonspecific findings where cancer later developed, and most were assessed as being normal or benign in appearance.
There is a subset of cancers that display perceptible but nonspecific mammographic findings that do not warrant recall, as judged by both a majority of blinded radiologists and by unblinded reviewers. We believe failure to act on these nonspecific findings prospectively does not necessarily constitute interpretation below a reasonable standard of care.
回顾性分析既往乳腺筛查钼靶片上的非特异性表现,以确定在后续筛查中同一部位发现乳腺癌时,哪些特征最常被视为正常或良性。
从13家机构收集了493对连续的钼靶检查结果,包括最初的正常筛查结果及随后筛查发现的癌症(两次检查的平均间隔时间为14.6个月)。一名指定的放射科医生对每对钼靶片进行复查,确定在后来发生癌症的部位,286个表现可在之前的检查中看到。五名不知情的放射科医生独立复查这286例病例的先前表现,识别出169例钼靶片(172处癌症),其表现非常细微,以至于五名放射科医生中无人或只有一两人建议进行筛查召回。两名知情的放射科医生复查最初和后续的表现,并记录每个表现的描述符和评估结果,以及影响为何尽管病变可察觉但可能未被发现或未被召回的主观因素。
在172处癌症中,129处(75%)为浸润性癌(112例T1期肿瘤和17例T2期或更高分期肿瘤;中位直径为10毫米),43处(25%)为导管原位癌(中位大小为10毫米)。在先前的钼靶片上,这些癌症中有80%(172处中的137处)在后来发生癌症的部位有细微的非特异性表现,且大多数外观被评估为正常或良性。
有一部分癌症在钼靶片上有可察觉但非特异性的表现,大多数不知情的放射科医生和知情的复查人员均认为这些表现无需召回。我们认为,前瞻性地对这些非特异性表现不采取行动不一定构成低于合理医疗标准的解读。