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

IF 4.7 2区 医学 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
European Radiology Pub Date : 2025-07-01 Epub Date: 2024-12-20 DOI:10.1007/s00330-024-11278-2
Kristin Johnson, Debra M Ikeda, Ingvar Andersson, Sophia Zackrisson
{"title":"Cancers not detected in one-view breast tomosynthesis screening-characteristics and reasons for non-detection.","authors":"Kristin Johnson, Debra M Ikeda, Ingvar Andersson, Sophia Zackrisson","doi":"10.1007/s00330-024-11278-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>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<sup>2</sup> test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Key points: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":12076,"journal":{"name":"European Radiology","volume":" ","pages":"3951-3960"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12166002/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-024-11278-2","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: 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.

Materials and methods: 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 X2 test.

Results: 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.

Conclusion: 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.

Key points: 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.

单面乳腺断层合成筛查未检出的肿瘤-未检出的特征及原因
目的:对数字化乳腺断层合成(DBT)筛查中未检测到的癌症的了解有限。本研究旨在将未检测到的癌症分为真阴性和假阴性,并与真阳性进行比较,分析未检测到的原因。材料和方法:2010年至2015年间进行的前瞻性单中心Malmö乳腺断层合成筛查试验(MBTST)比较了单视图DBT和双视图数字乳房x线摄影(DM)。DBT未检测到的癌症,即间隔期癌症,下一轮筛查中检测到的癌症,以及仅通过DM识别的癌症,由总共四名乳腺放射科医生进行了回顾性的知情审查。审查员根据DBT和DM的结果将癌症分为真阴性、假阴性或不可见,并评估筛查和诊断时的放射学表现、乳腺密度和未发现的原因。统计学采用Pearson X2检验。结果:MBTST中DBT未检出89例肿瘤;8例癌症仅处于糖尿病读数模式,59例在随后的糖尿病筛查中,22例间隔期癌症。基于DBT分类为假阴性的癌症比例为25%(22/89),而基于DM筛查的比例为18%(14/81)。假阴性的主要原因是表面密度正常,占50%(11/22)。假阴性的高乳腺密度发生率为36%(8/22),低于真阳性的61% (78/129),p = 0.04;假阴性的高乳腺密度发生率为41%(9/22),低于真阳性的68% (88/129),p = 0.01。结论:单视图DBT筛查假阴性多表现为针状特征,但较真阳性少,易因表面良性而漏诊或误读。在数字化乳腺断层合成筛查中未检测到的癌症,包括假阴性,仍有部分未被探索。在一项大型筛查试验中,癌症假阴性最常见的原因是表面上看起来正常的密度。认识到数字乳腺断层合成筛查中导致假阴性结果的因素对进一步提高癌症检测至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
European Radiology
European Radiology 医学-核医学
CiteScore
11.60
自引率
8.50%
发文量
874
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: European Radiology (ER) continuously updates scientific knowledge in radiology by publication of strong original articles and state-of-the-art reviews written by leading radiologists. A well balanced combination of review articles, original papers, short communications from European radiological congresses and information on society matters makes ER an indispensable source for current information in this field. This is the Journal of the European Society of Radiology, and the official journal of a number of societies. From 2004-2008 supplements to European Radiology were published under its companion, European Radiology Supplements, ISSN 1613-3749.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信