Missed Breast Cancer: Effects of Subconscious Bias and Lesion Characteristics

Discordant and false-negative interpretations at digital breast tomosynthesis in the prospective Oslo Tomosynthesis Screening Trial (OTST) using independent double reading

OBJECTIVES

To analyze discordant and false-negatives of double reading digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) versus digital mammography (DM) including reading times in the Oslo Tomosynthesis Screening Trial (OTST), and reclassify these in a retrospective reader study as missed, minimal sign, or true-negatives.

METHODS

The prospective OTST comparing double reading DBT vs. DM had paired design with four parallel arms: DM, DM + computer aided detection, DBT + DM, and DBT + synthetic mammography. Eight radiologists interpreted images in batches using a 5-point scale. Reading time was automatically recorded. A retrospective reader study including four radiologists classified screen-detected cancers with at least one false-negative score and screening examinations of interval cancers as negative, non-specific minimal sign, significant minimal sign, and missed; the two latter groups are defined "actionable." Statistics included chi-square, Fisher's exact, McNemar's, and Mann-Whitney U tests.

RESULTS

Discordant rate (cancer missed by one reader) for screen-detected cancers was overall comparable (DBT (31% [71/227]) and DM (30% [52/175]), p = .81), significantly lower at DBT for spiculated cancers (DBT, 19% [20/106] vs. DM, 36% [38/106], p = .003), but high (28/49 = 57%, p = 0.001) for DBT-only detected spiculated cancers. Reading time and sensitivity varied among readers. False-negative DBT-only detected spiculated cancers had shorter reading time than true-negatives in 46% (13/28). Retrospective evaluation classified the following DBT exams "actionable": three missed by both readers, 95% (39/41) of discordant cancers detected by both modes, all 30 discordant DBT-only cancers, 25% (13/51) of interval cancers.

CONCLUSIONS

Discordant rate was overall comparable for DBT and DM, significantly lower at DBT for spiculated cancers, but high for DBT-only detected spiculated lesions. Most false-negative screen-detected DBT were classified as "actionable."

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

Retrospective evaluation of false-negative interpretations from the Oslo Tomosynthesis Screening Trial shows that most discordant and several interval cancers could have been detected at screening. This underlines the potential for modern AI-based reading aids and triage, as high-volume screening is a demanding task.

KEY POINTS

• Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening is more sensitive and has higher specificity compared to digital mammography screening, but high-volume DBT screening is a demanding task which can result in high discordance rate among readers. • Independent double reading DBT screening had overall comparable discordance rate as digital mammography, lower for spiculated masses seen on both modalities, and higher for small spiculated cancer seen only on DBT. • Almost all discordant digital breast tomosynthesis-detected cancers (72 of 74) and 25% (13 of 51) of the interval cancers in the Oslo Tomosynthesis Screening Trial were retrospectively classified as actionable and could have been detected by the readers.

Breast imaging with an ultra-low field MRI scanner: a pilot study

Breast cancer screening is necessary to reduce mortality due to undetected breast cancer. Current methods have limitations, and as a result many women forego regular screening. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can overcome most of these limitations, but access to conventional MRI is not widely available for routine annual screening. Here, we used an MRI scanner operating at ultra-low field (ULF) to image the left breasts of 11 women (mean age, 35 years ±13 years) in the prone position. Three breast radiologists reviewed the imaging and were able to discern the breast outline and distinguish fibroglandular tissue (FGT) from intramammary adipose tissue. Additionally, the expert readers agreed on their assessment of the breast tissue pattern including fatty, scattered FGT, heterogeneous FGT, and extreme FGT. This preliminary work demonstrates that ULF breast MRI is feasible and may be a potential option for comfortable, widely deployable, and low-cost breast cancer diagnosis and screening.

Artificial Intelligence for Breast Cancer Detection on Mammography: Factors Related to Cancer Detection

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Little is known about the factors affecting the Artificial Intelligence (AI) software performance on mammography for breast cancer detection. This study was to identify factors associated with abnormality scores assigned by the AI software.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective database search was conducted to identify consecutive asymptomatic women who underwent breast cancer surgery between April 2016 and December 2019. A commercially available AI software (Lunit INSIGHT, MMG, Ver. 1.1.4.0) was used for preoperative mammography to assign individual abnormality scores to the lesions and score of 10 or higher was considered as positive detection by AI software. Radiologists without knowledge of the AI results retrospectively assessed the mammographic density and classified mammographic findings into positive and negative finding. General linear model (GLM) analysis was used to identify the clinical, pathological, and mammographic findings related to the abnormality scores, obtaining coefficient β values that represent the mean difference per unit or comparison with the reference value. Additionally, the reasons for non-detection by the AI software were investigated.

RESULTS

Among the 1001 index cancers (830 invasive cancers and 171 ductal carcinoma in situs) in 1001 patients, 717 (72%) were correctly detected by AI, while the remaining 284 (28%) were not detected. Multivariable GLM analysis showed that abnormal mammography findings (β = 77.0 for mass, β = 73.1 for calcification only, β = 49.4 for architectural distortion, and β = 47.6 for asymmetry compared to negative; all Ps < 0.001), invasive tumor size (β = 4.3 per 1 cm, P < 0.001), and human epidermal growth receptor type 2 (HER2) positivity (β = 9.2 compared to hormone receptor positive, HER2 negative, P = 0.004) were associated with higher mean abnormality score. AI failed to detect small asymmetries in extremely dense breasts, subcentimeter-sized or isodense lesions, and faint amorphous calcifications.

CONCLUSION

Cancers with positive abnormal mammographic findings on retrospective review, large invasive size, HER2 positivity had high AI abnormality scores. Understanding the patterns of AI software performance is crucial for effectively integrating AI into clinical practice.

A case report of challenges in distinguishing gastroesophageal junction hepatoid adenocarcinoma from testicular germ cell tumor: Insights for improved diagnosis with gene expression profiling

Gastroesophageal junction hepatoid adenocarcinoma is a rare form of gastroesophageal cancer. We present a case of a 38-year-old man with no significant medical history who was diagnosed with gastroesophageal junction hepatoid adenocarcinoma but initially misdiagnosed with a testicular germ cell tumor, given the elevated alpha-feto protein and poorly differentiated pathology. We will elaborate on the importance of gene expression profiling in modern oncology to better define the tumor of origin in patients with cancer of unknown primary origin, how it helped us to diagnose gastroesophageal junction hepatoid adenocarcinoma and how it can help identify potential additional therapeutic targets in some cases. Due to the rarity of this subtype of gastroesophageal junction cancer there is a lack of standard therapeutic options, and we will discuss the most commonly used treatment regimens. The patient underwent three lines of antineoplastic therapy and unfortunately passed after 51 weeks of follow-up.

The effect of a pre-scheduled appointment on attendance in a population-based mammography screening programme

BACKGROUND

Pre-scheduled appointments can increase attendance in breast cancer screening programmes compared to 'open invitations' but relatively few randomized controlled trials exist. We investigated the effect of a pre-scheduled appointment on uptake in the Flemish population-based mammography screening programme.

METHODS

Between September and December 2022, a total of 4798 women were randomly assigned to receive either a pre-scheduled appointment or open invitation. The difference in attendance was compared with Poisson regression analysis for the primary endpoint (attendance ≤92 days after date of invitation), yielding relative risks (RRs). This was done separately for three groups: women invited to a mobile unit and a history of nonattendance (group M-NA); women invited to a hospital-based unit and a history of nonattendance (group HB-NA); women invited to a hospital-based unit and a history of irregular attendance (group HB-IA). There were no women invited to a mobile unit and a history of irregular attendance.

RESULTS

The RRs in favour of the pre-scheduled appointment were 2.3 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.80-2.88], 1.8 (95% CI 1.07-2.97) and 1.8 (95% CI 1.43-2.39), for groups M-NA, HB-NA and HB-IA, respectively. We found no statistically significant difference between the various RRs. The respective absolute gains in attendance between pre-scheduled appointment and open invitation were 8.3%, 4.4% and 15.8%.

CONCLUSIONS

Sending an invitation with a pre-scheduled appointment is an effective tool to increase screening attendance in both mobile and hospital-based screening units. The pre-scheduled appointment is associated with a considerable absolute gain in attendance which varies depending on the screening history.

False-Positive and False-Negative Contrast-enhanced Mammograms: Pitfalls and Strategies to Improve Cancer Detection

Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is a relatively new breast imaging modality that uses intravenous contrast material to increase detection of breast cancer. CEM combines the structural information of conventional mammography with the functional information of tumor neovascularity. Initial studies have demonstrated that CEM and MRI perform with similar accuracies, with CEM having a slightly higher specificity (fewer false positives), although larger studies are needed. There are various reasons for false positives and false negatives at CEM. False positives at CEM can be caused by benign lesions with vascularity, including benign tumors, infection or inflammation, benign lesions in the skin, and imaging artifacts. False negatives at CEM can be attributed to incomplete or inadequate visualization of lesions, marked background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) obscuring cancer, lack of lesion contrast enhancement due to technical issues or less-vascular cancers, artifacts, and errors of lesion perception or characterization. When possible, real-time interpretation of CEM studies is ideal. If additional views are necessary, they may be obtained while contrast material is still in the breast parenchyma. Until recently, a limitation of CEM was the lack of CEM-guided biopsy capability. However, in 2020, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration cleared two devices to support CEM-guided biopsy using a stereotactic biopsy technique. The authors review various causes of false-positive and false-negative contrast-enhanced mammograms and discuss strategies to reduce these diagnostic errors to improve cancer detection while mitigating unnecessary additional imaging and procedures. ©RSNA, 2023 Quiz questions for this article are available in the supplemental material.

Investigating the impact of cognitive biases in radiologists' image interpretation: A scoping review

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVE

Image interpretation is a fundamental aspect of radiology. The treatment and management of patients relies on accurate and timely imaging diagnosis. However, errors in radiological reports can negatively impact on patient health outcomes. These misdiagnoses can be caused by several different errors, but cognitive biases account for 74 % of all image interpretation errors. There are many biases that can impact on a radiologist's perception and cognitive processes. Several recent narrative reviews have discussed these cognitive biases and have offered possible strategies to mitigate their effects. However, these strategies remain untested. Therefore, the purpose of this scoping review is to evaluate the current knowledge on the extent that cognitive biases impact on medical image interpretation.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Scopus and Medline Databases were searched using relevant keywords to identify papers published between 2012 and 2022. A subsequent hand search of the narrative reviews was also performed. All studies collected were screened and assessed against the inclusion and exclusion criteria.

RESULTS

Twenty-four publications were included and categorised into five main themes: satisfaction of search, availability bias, hindsight bias, framing bias and other biases. From these studies, there were mixed results regarding the impact of cognitive biases, highlighting the need for further investigation in this area. Moreover, the limited and untested debiasing methods offered by a minority of the publications and narrative reviews also suggests the need for further research. The potential of role of artificial intelligence is also highlighted to further assist radiologists in identifying and mitigating these cognitive biases.

CONCLUSION

Cognitive biases can impact radiologists' image interpretation, however the effectiveness of debiasing strategies remain largely untested.

Standalone AI for Breast Cancer Detection at Screening Digital Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background There is considerable interest in the potential use of artificial intelligence (AI) systems in mammographic screening. However, it is essential to critically evaluate the performance of AI before it can become a modality used for independent mammographic interpretation. Purpose To evaluate the reported standalone performances of AI for interpretation of digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). Materials and Methods A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Google Scholar, Embase (Ovid), and Web of Science databases for studies published from January 2017 to June 2022. Sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) values were reviewed. Study quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 and Comparative (QUADAS-2 and QUADAS-C, respectively). A random effects meta-analysis and meta-regression analysis were performed for overall studies and for different study types (reader studies vs historic cohort studies) and imaging techniques (digital mammography vs DBT). Results In total, 16 studies that include 1 108 328 examinations in 497 091 women were analyzed (six reader studies, seven historic cohort studies on digital mammography, and four studies on DBT). Pooled AUCs were significantly higher for standalone AI than radiologists in the six reader studies on digital mammography (0.87 vs 0.81, P = .002), but not for historic cohort studies (0.89 vs 0.96, P = .152). Four studies on DBT showed significantly higher AUCs in AI compared with radiologists (0.90 vs 0.79, P < .001). Higher sensitivity and lower specificity were seen for standalone AI compared with radiologists. Conclusion Standalone AI for screening digital mammography performed as well as or better than radiologists. Compared with digital mammography, there is an insufficient number of studies to assess the performance of AI systems in the interpretation of DBT screening examinations. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Scaranelo in this issue.

Critical Review of Oncologic Medical Malpractice Claims Against Orthopaedic Surgeons

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to determine the most common allegations for malpractice litigation brought against orthopaedic surgeons for oncologic matters and the resulting verdicts.

METHODS

The Westlaw Legal research database was queried for malpractice cases filed against orthopaedic surgeons for oncologic matters in the United States after 1980. Plaintiff demographics, state of filing, allegations, and outcomes of lawsuits were recorded and reported accordingly.

RESULTS

A total of 36 cases met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and were subsequently included in the final analysis. The overall rate of cases filed remained consistent through the past four decades and was primarily related to a primary sarcoma diagnosis in adult women. The primary reason for litigation was failure to diagnose a primary malignant sarcoma (42%) followed by failure to diagnose unrelated carcinoma (19%). The most common states of filing were primarily located in the Northeast (47%), where a plaintiff verdict was also more commonly encountered as compared with other regions. Damages awarded averaged $1,672,500 with a range of $134, 231 to $6,250,000 and a median of $918,750.

CONCLUSION

Failure to diagnose primary malignant sarcoma and unrelated carcinoma was the most common reason for oncologic litigation brought against orthopaedic surgeons. Although most of the cases ruled in favor of the defendant surgeon, it is important for orthopaedic surgeons to be aware of the potential errors that not only prevent litigation but also improve patient care.

Audit of Prior Screening Mammograms of Screen-Detected Cancers: Implications for the Delay in Breast Cancer Detection

When cancer is detected in a screening mammogram, on occasion retrospective review of prior screening (pre-index) mammograms indicates a likely presence of cancer. These missed cancers during pre-index screens constitute a delay in detection and diagnosis. This study was undertaken to quantify the missed cancer rate by auditing pre-index screens to improve the quality of mammography screening practice. From a cohort of 135 screen-detected cancers, 120 pre-index screening mammograms could be retrieved and served as the study sample. A consensus read by 2 radiologists who interpreted the pre-index screens in an unblinded manner with full knowledge of cancer location, cancer type, lesion type, and pathology served as the truth or reference standard. Five radiologists interpreted the pre-index screens in a blinded manner. Established performance metrics such as sensitivity and specificity were quantified for each reader in interpreting these pre-index screens in a blinded manner. All five radiologists detected lesions in 8/120 (6.7%) screens. Excluding the 2 readers whose performance was close to random, all the 3 remaining readers detected lesions in 13 pre-index screens. This indicates that there is a delay in diagnosis by at least one cycle from 8/120 (6.7%) to 13/120 (10.8%). There were no observable trends in terms of either the cancer type or the lesion type. Auditing prior screening mammograms in screen-detected cancers can help in identifying the proportion of cases that were missed during interpretation and help in quantifying the delay in breast cancer detection.

Peer learning in breast imaging

With the increasing focus on quality and safety in medicine, radiology practices are increasingly transitioning from traditional score-based peer review to peer learning. Participation in a peer learning program can increase learning, practice improvement, and cultivation of interpersonal relationships in a non-punitive environment. As breast imaging errors are the most cited in medical malpractice cases, learning and attention to and reduction of these errors in breast imaging are especially important. We describe the strengths of a peer learning program, implementation process in a breast imaging program, challenges to overcome, and strategies to support success.

True and Missed Interval Cancer in Organized Mammographic Screening: A Retrospective Review Study of Diagnostic and Prior Screening Mammograms

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

To explore radiological aspects of interval breast cancer in a population-based screening program.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a consensus-based informed review of mammograms from diagnosis and prior screening from women diagnosed with interval cancer 2004-2016 in BreastScreen Norway. Cases were classified as true (no findings on prior screening mammograms), occult (no findings at screening or diagnosis), minimal signs (minor/non-specific findings) and missed (obvious findings). We analyzed mammographic findings, density, time since prior screening, and histopathological characteristics between the classification groups.

RESULTS

The study included 1010 interval cancer cases. Mean age at diagnosis was 61 years (SD = 6), mean time between screening and diagnosis 14 months (SD = 7). A total of 48% (479/1010) were classified as true or occult, 28% (285/1010) as minimal signs and 24% (246/1010) as missed. We observed no differences in mammographic density between the groups, except from a higher percentage of dense breasts in women with occult cancer. Among cancers classified as missed, about 1/3 were masses and 1/3 asymmetries at prior screening. True interval cancers were diagnosed later in the screening interval than the other classification categories. No differences in histopathological characteristics were observed between true, minimal signs and missed cases.

CONCLUSION

In an informed review, 24% of the interval cancers were classified as missed based on visibility and mammographic findings on prior screening mammograms. Three out of four true interval cancers were diagnosed in the second year of the screening interval. We observed no statistical differences in histopathological characteristics between true and missed interval cancers.

What's Hot in Breast MRI

Several articles in the literature have demonstrated a promising role for breast MRI techniques that are more economic in total exam time than others when used as supplement to mammography for detection and diagnosis of breast cancer. There are many technical factors that must be considered in the shortened breast MRI protocols to cut down time of standard ones, including using optimal fat suppression, gadolinium-chelates intravascular contrast administrations for dynamic imaging with post processing subtractions and maximum intensity projections (MIP) high spatial and temporal resolution among others. Multiparametric breast MRI that includes both gadolinium-dependent, i.e., dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE-MRI) and gadolinium-free techniques, i.e., diffusion-weighted/diffusion-tensor magnetic resonance imaging (DWI/DTI) are shown by several investigators that can provide extremely high sensitivity and specificity for detection of breast cancer. This article provides an overview of the proven indications for breast MRI including breast cancer screening for higher than average risk, determining chemotherapy induced tumor response, detecting residual tumor after incomplete surgical excision, detecting occult cancer in patients presenting with axillary node metastasis, detecting residual tumor after incomplete breast cancer surgical excision, detecting cancer when results of conventional imaging are equivocal, as well patients suspicious of having breast implant rupture. Despite having the highest sensitivity for breast cancer detection, there are pitfalls, however, secondary to false positive and false negative contrast enhancement and contrast-free MRI techniques. Awareness of the strengths and limitations of different approaches to obtain state of the art MR images of the breast will facilitate the work-up of patients with suspicious breast lesions.

Errors in Breast Imaging: How to Reduce Errors and Promote a Safety Environment

Medical errors have a significant impact on patient care, worker safety, and health care finances. Breast imaging has the most common cause of organ-related misdiagnosis subject to malpractice suits. In order to effectively develop strategies to prevent errors, breast imaging radiologists must first understand the underlying causes of the errors that occur in the breast imaging setting. Errors in breast imaging can be related to errors in interpretation, improper workup of imaging findings, procedural errors, or errors in communication to the patient or other medical staff. The Yorkshire contributory factors framework was developed to identify factors that contribute to the errors in a hospital setting and can be adapted for use in the breast imaging setting. Within this framework, active failures refer to errors that directly affect the patient. Active errors include slips (including biases), lapses, and mistakes. The framework describes how active errors often result from factors that occur uphill from these active errors at different levels within the system. Once error causes are understood, there are concrete strategies and tools that breast imaging radiologists can implement to decrease adverse events, reduce medical errors, and promote a safety environment in the breast imaging clinic. Error mitigation tools can be summarized using the acronym SAFE, which includes support the team, ask questions, focus on a task, and effectively communicate/ensure equipment optimization/safe environment. Knowledge of errors commonly seen in a breast imaging clinic represent an opportunity for constructive changes and, ultimately, improved health care delivery.

Breast MRI: False-Negative Results and Missed Opportunities

Breast MRI is the most sensitive modality for the detection of breast cancer. However, false-negative cases may occur, in which the cancer is not visualized at MRI and is instead diagnosed with another imaging modality. The authors describe the causes of false-negative breast MRI results, which can be categorized broadly as secondary to perceptual errors or cognitive errors, or nonvisualization secondary to nonenhancement of the tumor. Tips and strategies to avoid these errors are discussed. Perceptual errors occur when an abnormality is not prospectively identified, yet the examination is technically adequate. Careful development of thorough search patterns is critical to avoid these errors. Cognitive errors occur when an abnormality is identified but misinterpreted or mischaracterized as benign. The radiologist may avoid these errors by utilizing all available prior examinations for comparison, viewing images in all planes to better assess the margins and shapes of abnormalities, and appropriately integrating all available information from the contrast-enhanced, T2-weighted, and T1-weighted images as well as the clinical history. Despite this, false-negative cases are inevitable, as certain subtypes of breast cancer, including ductal carcinoma in situ, invasive lobular carcinoma, and certain well-differentiated invasive cancers, may demonstrate little to no enhancement at MRI, owing to differences in angiogenesis and neovascularity. MRI is a valuable diagnostic tool in breast imaging. However, MRI should continue to be used as a complementary modality, with mammography and US, in the detection of breast cancer. ^©RSNA, 2021.