Cancers not detected in one-view breast tomosynthesis screening-characteristics and reasons for non-detection

Limited understanding exists regarding non-detected cancers in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening. This study aims to classify non-detected cancers into true or false negatives, compare them with true positives, and analyze reasons for non-detection. Conducted between 2010 and 2015, the pr...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:European radiology 2024-12
Hauptverfasser: Johnson, Kristin, Ikeda, Debra M, Andersson, Ingvar, Zackrisson, Sophia
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue
container_start_page
container_title European radiology
container_volume
creator Johnson, Kristin
Ikeda, Debra M
Andersson, Ingvar
Zackrisson, Sophia
description Limited understanding exists regarding non-detected cancers in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening. This study aims to classify non-detected cancers into true or false negatives, compare them with true positives, and analyze reasons for non-detection. Conducted between 2010 and 2015, the prospective single-center Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial (MBTST) compared one-view DBT and two-view digital mammography (DM). Cancers not detected by DBT, i.e., interval cancers, those detected in the next screening round, and those only identified by DM, underwent a retrospective informed review by in total four breast radiologists. Reviewers classified cancers into true negative, false negative, or non-visible based on both DBT and DM findings and assessed radiographic appearances at screening and diagnosis, breast density, and reasons for non-detection. Statistics included the Pearson X test. In total, 89 cancers were not detected with DBT in the MBTST; eight cancers were solely in the DM reading mode, 59 during subsequent DM screening rounds, and 22 interval cancers. The proportion of cancers classified as false negative was 25% (22/89) based on DBT, compared with 18% (14/81) based on DM screening. The primary reason for false negatives was normal-appearing density, 50% (11/22). False negatives exhibited lower rates of high breast density, 36% (8/22), compared with true positives, 61% (78/129), p = 0.04, and spiculated densities were less frequent in false negatives, 41% (9/22) compared with true positives, 68% (88/129), p = 0.01. False negatives in one-view DBT screening commonly presented with spiculated features, but less frequently than true positives, and were missed or misinterpreted due to benign appearances. Question Cancers not detected in digital breast tomosynthesis screening, including false negatives, remain partly unexplored. Findings The most common reason behind false-negative cancers in a large screening trial was a normal-appearing density. Clinical relevance Recognizing the factors contributing to false negative findings in digital breast tomosynthesis screening is essential to further improve cancer detection.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s00330-024-11278-2
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_swepu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_3147973010</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3147973010</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c297t-8ae8f79590b1d849a8f0e78227f21c5e203b361021db85e22af6ff754bcf0eb83</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpNkU2PFCEQhjtG466rf8CD4egFLT6mgaOZuGoyiRc9E6ALt80MjFS3m_33sva68VABkvd9KuEZhtcC3gkA854AlAIOUnMhpLFcPhkuhVaSC7D66X_3i-EF0U8AcEKb58OFcgZGJ8XlcNqHkrARK3VhEy6YFpzYXFgtyH_PeMtiw0ALW-qp0l1ZbpBmYpQaYpnLD55uQgu91GZa5kQslIndN2ohlmvr3MI37lzLy-FZDkfCVw_n1fD9-uO3_Wd--Prpy_7DgSfpzMJtQJuN2zmIYrLaBZsBjZXSZCnSDiWoqEYBUkzR9qcMeczZ7HRMPRituhoOG5du8bxGf27zKbQ7X8Psj-u5T-zjCX2YJBg3ah9iDl5P2XhrEb2btNw5bV3CsePebrhzq79WpMWfZkp4PIaCdSWv-q86o0BAj8otmlolapgfdwvw99b8Zs13a_6vNS976c0Df40nnB4r_zSpP5RYlLM</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>3147973010</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Cancers not detected in one-view breast tomosynthesis screening-characteristics and reasons for non-detection</title><source>SWEPUB Freely available online</source><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Johnson, Kristin ; Ikeda, Debra M ; Andersson, Ingvar ; Zackrisson, Sophia</creator><creatorcontrib>Johnson, Kristin ; Ikeda, Debra M ; Andersson, Ingvar ; Zackrisson, Sophia</creatorcontrib><description>Limited understanding exists regarding non-detected cancers in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening. This study aims to classify non-detected cancers into true or false negatives, compare them with true positives, and analyze reasons for non-detection. Conducted between 2010 and 2015, the prospective single-center Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial (MBTST) compared one-view DBT and two-view digital mammography (DM). Cancers not detected by DBT, i.e., interval cancers, those detected in the next screening round, and those only identified by DM, underwent a retrospective informed review by in total four breast radiologists. Reviewers classified cancers into true negative, false negative, or non-visible based on both DBT and DM findings and assessed radiographic appearances at screening and diagnosis, breast density, and reasons for non-detection. Statistics included the Pearson X test. In total, 89 cancers were not detected with DBT in the MBTST; eight cancers were solely in the DM reading mode, 59 during subsequent DM screening rounds, and 22 interval cancers. The proportion of cancers classified as false negative was 25% (22/89) based on DBT, compared with 18% (14/81) based on DM screening. The primary reason for false negatives was normal-appearing density, 50% (11/22). False negatives exhibited lower rates of high breast density, 36% (8/22), compared with true positives, 61% (78/129), p = 0.04, and spiculated densities were less frequent in false negatives, 41% (9/22) compared with true positives, 68% (88/129), p = 0.01. False negatives in one-view DBT screening commonly presented with spiculated features, but less frequently than true positives, and were missed or misinterpreted due to benign appearances. Question Cancers not detected in digital breast tomosynthesis screening, including false negatives, remain partly unexplored. Findings The most common reason behind false-negative cancers in a large screening trial was a normal-appearing density. Clinical relevance Recognizing the factors contributing to false negative findings in digital breast tomosynthesis screening is essential to further improve cancer detection.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1432-1084</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 0938-7994</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1432-1084</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00330-024-11278-2</identifier><identifier>PMID: 39706921</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Germany</publisher><subject>Adults ; Breast ; Cancer and Oncology ; Cancer och onkologi ; Clinical Medicine ; Klinisk medicin ; Mammography ; Medical and Health Sciences ; Medicin och hälsovetenskap ; Screening ; Tomosynthesis</subject><ispartof>European radiology, 2024-12</ispartof><rights>2024. The Author(s).</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c297t-8ae8f79590b1d849a8f0e78227f21c5e203b361021db85e22af6ff754bcf0eb83</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-5099-423X</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>230,314,550,776,780,881,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39706921$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://lup.lub.lu.se/record/ad207964-abfa-4df7-88ee-9d4259489ce6$$DView record from Swedish Publication Index$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Johnson, Kristin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ikeda, Debra M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Andersson, Ingvar</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zackrisson, Sophia</creatorcontrib><title>Cancers not detected in one-view breast tomosynthesis screening-characteristics and reasons for non-detection</title><title>European radiology</title><addtitle>Eur Radiol</addtitle><description>Limited understanding exists regarding non-detected cancers in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening. This study aims to classify non-detected cancers into true or false negatives, compare them with true positives, and analyze reasons for non-detection. Conducted between 2010 and 2015, the prospective single-center Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial (MBTST) compared one-view DBT and two-view digital mammography (DM). Cancers not detected by DBT, i.e., interval cancers, those detected in the next screening round, and those only identified by DM, underwent a retrospective informed review by in total four breast radiologists. Reviewers classified cancers into true negative, false negative, or non-visible based on both DBT and DM findings and assessed radiographic appearances at screening and diagnosis, breast density, and reasons for non-detection. Statistics included the Pearson X test. In total, 89 cancers were not detected with DBT in the MBTST; eight cancers were solely in the DM reading mode, 59 during subsequent DM screening rounds, and 22 interval cancers. The proportion of cancers classified as false negative was 25% (22/89) based on DBT, compared with 18% (14/81) based on DM screening. The primary reason for false negatives was normal-appearing density, 50% (11/22). False negatives exhibited lower rates of high breast density, 36% (8/22), compared with true positives, 61% (78/129), p = 0.04, and spiculated densities were less frequent in false negatives, 41% (9/22) compared with true positives, 68% (88/129), p = 0.01. False negatives in one-view DBT screening commonly presented with spiculated features, but less frequently than true positives, and were missed or misinterpreted due to benign appearances. Question Cancers not detected in digital breast tomosynthesis screening, including false negatives, remain partly unexplored. Findings The most common reason behind false-negative cancers in a large screening trial was a normal-appearing density. Clinical relevance Recognizing the factors contributing to false negative findings in digital breast tomosynthesis screening is essential to further improve cancer detection.</description><subject>Adults</subject><subject>Breast</subject><subject>Cancer and Oncology</subject><subject>Cancer och onkologi</subject><subject>Clinical Medicine</subject><subject>Klinisk medicin</subject><subject>Mammography</subject><subject>Medical and Health Sciences</subject><subject>Medicin och hälsovetenskap</subject><subject>Screening</subject><subject>Tomosynthesis</subject><issn>1432-1084</issn><issn>0938-7994</issn><issn>1432-1084</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>D8T</sourceid><recordid>eNpNkU2PFCEQhjtG466rf8CD4egFLT6mgaOZuGoyiRc9E6ALt80MjFS3m_33sva68VABkvd9KuEZhtcC3gkA854AlAIOUnMhpLFcPhkuhVaSC7D66X_3i-EF0U8AcEKb58OFcgZGJ8XlcNqHkrARK3VhEy6YFpzYXFgtyH_PeMtiw0ALW-qp0l1ZbpBmYpQaYpnLD55uQgu91GZa5kQslIndN2ohlmvr3MI37lzLy-FZDkfCVw_n1fD9-uO3_Wd--Prpy_7DgSfpzMJtQJuN2zmIYrLaBZsBjZXSZCnSDiWoqEYBUkzR9qcMeczZ7HRMPRituhoOG5du8bxGf27zKbQ7X8Psj-u5T-zjCX2YJBg3ah9iDl5P2XhrEb2btNw5bV3CsePebrhzq79WpMWfZkp4PIaCdSWv-q86o0BAj8otmlolapgfdwvw99b8Zs13a_6vNS976c0Df40nnB4r_zSpP5RYlLM</recordid><startdate>20241220</startdate><enddate>20241220</enddate><creator>Johnson, Kristin</creator><creator>Ikeda, Debra M</creator><creator>Andersson, Ingvar</creator><creator>Zackrisson, Sophia</creator><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>ADTPV</scope><scope>AGCHP</scope><scope>AOWAS</scope><scope>D8T</scope><scope>D95</scope><scope>ZZAVC</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5099-423X</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20241220</creationdate><title>Cancers not detected in one-view breast tomosynthesis screening-characteristics and reasons for non-detection</title><author>Johnson, Kristin ; Ikeda, Debra M ; Andersson, Ingvar ; Zackrisson, Sophia</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c297t-8ae8f79590b1d849a8f0e78227f21c5e203b361021db85e22af6ff754bcf0eb83</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Adults</topic><topic>Breast</topic><topic>Cancer and Oncology</topic><topic>Cancer och onkologi</topic><topic>Clinical Medicine</topic><topic>Klinisk medicin</topic><topic>Mammography</topic><topic>Medical and Health Sciences</topic><topic>Medicin och hälsovetenskap</topic><topic>Screening</topic><topic>Tomosynthesis</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Johnson, Kristin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ikeda, Debra M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Andersson, Ingvar</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zackrisson, Sophia</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>SwePub</collection><collection>SWEPUB Lunds universitet full text</collection><collection>SwePub Articles</collection><collection>SWEPUB Freely available online</collection><collection>SWEPUB Lunds universitet</collection><collection>SwePub Articles full text</collection><jtitle>European radiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Johnson, Kristin</au><au>Ikeda, Debra M</au><au>Andersson, Ingvar</au><au>Zackrisson, Sophia</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Cancers not detected in one-view breast tomosynthesis screening-characteristics and reasons for non-detection</atitle><jtitle>European radiology</jtitle><addtitle>Eur Radiol</addtitle><date>2024-12-20</date><risdate>2024</risdate><issn>1432-1084</issn><issn>0938-7994</issn><eissn>1432-1084</eissn><abstract>Limited understanding exists regarding non-detected cancers in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening. This study aims to classify non-detected cancers into true or false negatives, compare them with true positives, and analyze reasons for non-detection. Conducted between 2010 and 2015, the prospective single-center Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial (MBTST) compared one-view DBT and two-view digital mammography (DM). Cancers not detected by DBT, i.e., interval cancers, those detected in the next screening round, and those only identified by DM, underwent a retrospective informed review by in total four breast radiologists. Reviewers classified cancers into true negative, false negative, or non-visible based on both DBT and DM findings and assessed radiographic appearances at screening and diagnosis, breast density, and reasons for non-detection. Statistics included the Pearson X test. In total, 89 cancers were not detected with DBT in the MBTST; eight cancers were solely in the DM reading mode, 59 during subsequent DM screening rounds, and 22 interval cancers. The proportion of cancers classified as false negative was 25% (22/89) based on DBT, compared with 18% (14/81) based on DM screening. The primary reason for false negatives was normal-appearing density, 50% (11/22). False negatives exhibited lower rates of high breast density, 36% (8/22), compared with true positives, 61% (78/129), p = 0.04, and spiculated densities were less frequent in false negatives, 41% (9/22) compared with true positives, 68% (88/129), p = 0.01. False negatives in one-view DBT screening commonly presented with spiculated features, but less frequently than true positives, and were missed or misinterpreted due to benign appearances. Question Cancers not detected in digital breast tomosynthesis screening, including false negatives, remain partly unexplored. Findings The most common reason behind false-negative cancers in a large screening trial was a normal-appearing density. Clinical relevance Recognizing the factors contributing to false negative findings in digital breast tomosynthesis screening is essential to further improve cancer detection.</abstract><cop>Germany</cop><pmid>39706921</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00330-024-11278-2</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5099-423X</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1432-1084
ispartof European radiology, 2024-12
issn 1432-1084
0938-7994
1432-1084
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_3147973010
source SWEPUB Freely available online; SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings
subjects Adults
Breast
Cancer and Oncology
Cancer och onkologi
Clinical Medicine
Klinisk medicin
Mammography
Medical and Health Sciences
Medicin och hälsovetenskap
Screening
Tomosynthesis
title Cancers not detected in one-view breast tomosynthesis screening-characteristics and reasons for non-detection
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-06T16%3A13%3A47IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_swepu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Cancers%20not%20detected%20in%20one-view%20breast%20tomosynthesis%20screening-characteristics%20and%20reasons%20for%20non-detection&rft.jtitle=European%20radiology&rft.au=Johnson,%20Kristin&rft.date=2024-12-20&rft.issn=1432-1084&rft.eissn=1432-1084&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00330-024-11278-2&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_swepu%3E3147973010%3C/proquest_swepu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=3147973010&rft_id=info:pmid/39706921&rfr_iscdi=true