European journal of radiology · 2009
Previous imaging findings of breast cancers that occurred in combined screening negatives.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Han Boo-Kyung, Hahn Soo Yeon, Ko Eun Young, Shin Jung Hee, Kang Seok Seon
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To retrospectively evaluate previous imaging findings of breast cancers that occurred in women whose combined screening using both mammography and ultrasonography was negative.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A search of the institutional database identified 65 patients with breast cancers who had comparable previous negative screening mammography and ultrasonography (BI-RADS category 1 or 2) within 2 years. We classified each case as true or false negative. The previous imaging findings and the final outcome were analyzed.
RESULTS: Among 65 cases, 42 (65%) were true negatives, 23 (35%) were false negatives. The abnormalities of false negatives were underestimated in 16 (70%) and unrecognized in 7 (30%). The findings were calcifications (n=8) or a mass (n=6) on mammography, a mass (n=5) or a non-mass (n=3) on ultrasonography and a density on mammography correlated with non-mass on ultrasonography (n=1). Ductal carcinoma in situ among false and true negatives accounted for 5 (22%) and 7 (17%), respectively. Symptomatic cancers among false and true negatives were 6 (26%) and 13 (31%), respectively.
CONCLUSION: Breast cancers that rarely occurred in combined screening negatives are often retrospectively seen as minimal abnormalities on previous imaging studies.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A search of the institutional database identified 65 patients with breast cancers who had comparable previous negative screening mammography and ultrasonography (BI-RADS category 1 or 2) within 2 years. We classified each case as true or false negative. The previous imaging findings and the final outcome were analyzed.
RESULTS: Among 65 cases, 42 (65%) were true negatives, 23 (35%) were false negatives. The abnormalities of false negatives were underestimated in 16 (70%) and unrecognized in 7 (30%). The findings were calcifications (n=8) or a mass (n=6) on mammography, a mass (n=5) or a non-mass (n=3) on ultrasonography and a density on mammography correlated with non-mass on ultrasonography (n=1). Ductal carcinoma in situ among false and true negatives accounted for 5 (22%) and 7 (17%), respectively. Symptomatic cancers among false and true negatives were 6 (26%) and 13 (31%), respectively.
CONCLUSION: Breast cancers that rarely occurred in combined screening negatives are often retrospectively seen as minimal abnormalities on previous imaging studies.