Audit of negative assessments in a breast-screening programme in women who later develop breast cancer—implications for survival

Fatigue and vigilance in medical experts detecting breast cancer

An abundance of laboratory-based experiments has described a vigilance decrement of reducing accuracy to detect targets with time on task, but there are few real-world studies, none of which have previously controlled the environment to control for bias. We describe accuracy in clinical practice for 360 experts who examined >1 million women's mammograms for signs of cancer, whilst controlling for potential biases. The vigilance decrement pattern was not observed. Instead, test accuracy improved over time, through a reduction in false alarms and an increase in speed, with no significant change in sensitivity. The multiple-decision model explains why experts miss targets in low prevalence settings through a change in decision threshold and search quit threshold and propose it should be adapted to explain these observed patterns of accuracy with time on task. What is typically thought of as standard and robust research findings in controlled laboratory settings may not directly apply to real-world environments and instead large, controlled studies in relevant environments are needed.

The Global and Regional Survival Rate of Women With Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Breast cancer is the most common cancer among women in the world. The aim of this study was to measure the global and regional survival rates of women with breast cancer. We searched Medline/PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar to identify cohort studies on the survival rate of women with primary invasive breast cancer until the end of June 2017. We used random effect models to estimate the pooled 1-, 3-, 5-, and 10-year survival rates. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression models were used to investigate the potential sources of heterogeneity. One hundred twenty-six studies were included in the meta-analysis. Between-study heterogeneities in the 1-, 3-, 5-, and 10-year survival rates were significantly high (all I²s > 50%; P = .001). The global 1-, 3-, 5-, and 10-year pooled survival rates in women with breast cancer were 0.92 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90-0.94), 0.75 (95% CI, 0.71-0.79), 0.73 (95% CI, 0.71-0.75), and 0.61% (95% CI, 0.54-0.67), respectively. Subgroup analysis revealed that survival rates varied in different World Health Organization regions, age and stage at diagnosis, year of the studies, and degree of development of countries. Meta-regression indicated that year of the study (β = 0.07; P = .002) and development of country (β = -0.1; P = .0001) were potential sources of heterogeneity. The survival rate was improved in recent decades; however, it is lower in developing regions than developed ones.

Screening outcome in women repeatedly recalled for the same mammographic abnormality before, during and after the transition from screen-film to full-field digital screening mammography

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to retrospectively determine screening outcome in women recalled twice for the same mammographic lesion before, during, and after transition from screen-film (SFM) to full-field digital screening mammography (FFDM).

METHODS

We included women with a repeated recall for the same mammographic abnormality (37 at subsequent SFM-screening, obtained between January 2000-April 2010; respectively 54 and 65 women with a prior SFM-screen or FFDM-screen followed by subsequent FFDM-screening, obtained between May 2009-July 2013).

RESULTS

At SFM-screening, repeated recalls for the same lesion comprised 1.2 % of recalls (37/3217), including 13 malignancies (positive predictive value (PPV), 35.1 %). During the SFM to FFDM transition (SFM-screen followed by FFDM-screen), FFDM recalls comprised more repeated recalls for the same lesion (2.2 %, P = 0.002), with a lower PPV (14.8 %, P = 0.02). This proportion increased to 2.8 % after transition to FFDM (i.e., two successive FFDM-screens), with 16 malignancies (PPV, 24.6 %). Invasive cancers at repeated recall were smaller than interval cancers (T1a-c, 79.4 versus 46.8 %, P = 0.001), with less lymph node involvement (20.6 versus 46.5 %, P = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

More women are repeatedly recalled for the same mammographic abnormality during and after the transition from SFM to FFDM-screening, with comparable cancer risks before and after the transition. These cancers show better prognostic characteristics than interval cancers.

KEY POINTS

• FFDM-screening increases the number of repeated recalls for the same mammographic abnormality. • The PPV of these recalls is comparable before and after transition to FFDM-screening. • Cancers diagnosed after a repeated recall are smaller than interval cancers. • These cancers also show less lymph node involvement than interval cancers.

Delayed diagnosis of breast cancer in women recalled for suspicious screening mammography

PURPOSE

To determine the frequency, pathology and causes of a delay in cancer diagnosis in women recalled for suspicious screening mammography.

METHODS

We included all 290,943 screening mammograms of women aged 50-75 years, who underwent biennial screening mammography between 1st January 1995 and 1st January 2006. During a follow-up period of at least 2 years, clinical data, breast imaging reports, biopsy results and breast surgery reports were collected of all 3513 women with a positive screening result. Tumour stages of breast cancers with a diagnostic delay (defined as breast cancer confirmation more than 3 months following a positive mammography screen) were compared with those of cancers diagnosed within 3 months following referral and with interval cancers.

RESULTS

A diagnostic delay occurred in 97 (6.5%) of 1503 screen-detected cancers. These 97 false-negative assessments comprised significantly more ductal cancers in situ (26.8%) than did cancers with an adequate assessment after recall (15.5%, p=0.004) or interval cancers (3.7%, p<0.001). Compared with interval cancers, cancers with a false-negative assessment had a more favourable tumour size (T1a-c, 87.3% versus T1a-c, 46.4%; p<0.001) and showed significantly fewer cases with axillary lymph node metastases (22.5% versus 48.2%; p<0.001). Between hospitals having performed the workup of at least 500 referred women each, the percentage of women with a false-negative assessment varied from 5.0% to 9.1% (p=0.03). In these hospitals, improper classification of lesions at diagnostic mammography comprised 64.4% of false-negative assessments.

CONCLUSION

We found that 6.5% of recalled women experienced a delay in breast cancer diagnosis, with significant performance variations between hospitals.

Minority report – false negative breast assessment in women recalled for suspicious screening mammography: imaging and pathological features, and associated delay in diagnosis

AIM

We studied imaging, pathology and diagnostic aspects of false negative assessment (FNA) in women recalled for suspicious screening mammography.

METHOD

Subjects were women aged 50-69 years undergoing biennial screening mammography within the Florence District screening programme from January 1992-December 2001 (339,953 consecutive screens). We identified all cancers occurring in women recalled to assessment and ascertained, and reviewed, all cases considered as negative on assessment and subsequently diagnosed with breast cancer. We compared imaging features, tumour histology and stage, and diagnostic testing on assessment for all women with cancer, and presentation and length of delay in women falsely negative on assessment.

RESULTS

Eleven thousand six hundred and twenty four women were recalled to diagnostic assessment (recall rate = 3.4%) predominantly for suspicious mammography (9,216 positive screens). Breast cancer was missed in 57 cases: a FNA rate of 0.50% (0.37-0.62%) and comprising 4.1% (3.0-5.1%) of cancers occurring in women recalled after a positive screen. Two types of abnormalities were significantly more frequent in FNA cases than cancers detected at assessment: mass with regular borders (21.1 vs. 5.6%, p = 10(-5)), and asymmetrical density (22.8 vs. 5.4%, p = 10(-5)). On review 56% of FNAs were benign or probably benign BI-RADS categories. FNA occurred in 1.4% of early recalls and in 0.4% of initial assessment (p=0.0001). Significantly fewer tests were performed when assessing missed cancers than detected cancers with the most significant difference noted for FNAC (29.8 vs. 96.0%, p=10(-6)); mammography as the only evaluation on assessment was more frequent in missed cancers (31.5% vs 0.2%, p = 10(-6)). The 57 missed cases were subsequently diagnosed at early recall (2 cases), next biennial screen (11 cases), or as interval breast cancers (44 cases) with a mean delay in diagnosis of 628 days. Tumour histology, size and nodal status did not significantly differ between cancers missed and cancers diagnosed on assessment.

CONCLUSION

False negatives on assessment represent a minority group in whom screening has failed. They might be reduced by adopting a more intensive diagnostic approach to assessment. Although there was no evidence of a worse prognosis in cancers missed at assessment, the delay in diagnosis is substantial and may impact long-term outcomes.