Carcinoma de intervalo en un programa de cribado de cáncer de mama (2007-2018). Características y pronóstico

IF 1.1 Q3 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING RADIOLOGIA Pub Date : 2024-11-01 DOI:10.1016/j.rx.2023.03.005
{"title":"Carcinoma de intervalo en un programa de cribado de cáncer de mama (2007-2018). Características y pronóstico","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.rx.2023.03.005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background and aims</h3><div>To analyze the radiologic and histologic characteristics of screening and interval cancers diagnosed in the period comprising 2007 through 2018 in a total of six rounds of a population-based breast cancer screening program.</div></div><div><h3>Material and methods</h3><div>We analyzed 1395 carcinomas detected at screening and 300 interval carcinomas diagnosed in women aged 50 to 69<!--> <!-->years old who underwent digital mammography every two years during the study period. Screening mammograms were read once.</div><div>To classify the interval carcinomas, we retrospectively reviewed (blind reading followed by unblinded reading) at the end of each round, recording the radiologic findings, breast density, histologic characteristics, phenotype, and surgical treatment.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The interval carcinomas were classified as true interval cancers in 156 (52%) cases, false-negatives in 62 (20.5%), minimal signs in 39 (13%), occult lesions in 29 (9.5%), and impossible to classify in 14 (5%).</div><div>Retrospectively, the most common radiologic findings in the false-negative cases were mass/asymmetry (64%), calcifications (16%), and distortion (13%); the most common radiologic findings in the cases with minimal signs were mass/asymmetry (58%) and calcifications (31%).</div><div>There were significant differences in the histologic characteristics between cancers detected at screening and interval cancers: T1a-b (9% of the interval cancers vs. 34% of those detected at screening; <em>P</em> <!-->&lt;<!--> <!-->.001); T1c (30% of the interval cancers vs. 44% of those detected at screening; <em>P</em> <!-->&lt;<!--> <!-->.001); T2 or greater (61% of the interval cancers vs. 22% of those detected at screening; <em>P</em> <!-->&lt;<!--> <!-->.001), and the degree of axillary involvement (45% of the interval cancers vs. 27% of those detected at screening; <em>P</em> <!-->&lt;<!--> <!-->.001).</div><div>There were also significant differences between cancers detected at screening and interval cancers in the proportion of cases with more aggressive subtypes (HER2+ and triple-negative): 38.5% of the interval cancers vs. 23% of those detected at screening; <em>P</em> <!-->&lt;<!--> <!-->.001.</div><div>A significantly higher proportion of interval cancers were treated with mastectomies (80% vs. 67% of those detected at screening; <em>P</em> <!-->&lt;<!--> <!-->.001).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>About 20% of interval cancers were evident on screening mammograms. The most common radiologic finding in interval cancers was asymmetry/mass. Interval cancers are diagnosed at a more advanced stage than cancers identified at screening, so they are more often treated by mastectomy. Reviewing interval cancers is essential for quality control in screening programs.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":31509,"journal":{"name":"RADIOLOGIA","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"RADIOLOGIA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0033833823000693","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and aims

To analyze the radiologic and histologic characteristics of screening and interval cancers diagnosed in the period comprising 2007 through 2018 in a total of six rounds of a population-based breast cancer screening program.

Material and methods

We analyzed 1395 carcinomas detected at screening and 300 interval carcinomas diagnosed in women aged 50 to 69 years old who underwent digital mammography every two years during the study period. Screening mammograms were read once.
To classify the interval carcinomas, we retrospectively reviewed (blind reading followed by unblinded reading) at the end of each round, recording the radiologic findings, breast density, histologic characteristics, phenotype, and surgical treatment.

Results

The interval carcinomas were classified as true interval cancers in 156 (52%) cases, false-negatives in 62 (20.5%), minimal signs in 39 (13%), occult lesions in 29 (9.5%), and impossible to classify in 14 (5%).
Retrospectively, the most common radiologic findings in the false-negative cases were mass/asymmetry (64%), calcifications (16%), and distortion (13%); the most common radiologic findings in the cases with minimal signs were mass/asymmetry (58%) and calcifications (31%).
There were significant differences in the histologic characteristics between cancers detected at screening and interval cancers: T1a-b (9% of the interval cancers vs. 34% of those detected at screening; P < .001); T1c (30% of the interval cancers vs. 44% of those detected at screening; P < .001); T2 or greater (61% of the interval cancers vs. 22% of those detected at screening; P < .001), and the degree of axillary involvement (45% of the interval cancers vs. 27% of those detected at screening; P < .001).
There were also significant differences between cancers detected at screening and interval cancers in the proportion of cases with more aggressive subtypes (HER2+ and triple-negative): 38.5% of the interval cancers vs. 23% of those detected at screening; P < .001.
A significantly higher proportion of interval cancers were treated with mastectomies (80% vs. 67% of those detected at screening; P < .001).

Conclusions

About 20% of interval cancers were evident on screening mammograms. The most common radiologic finding in interval cancers was asymmetry/mass. Interval cancers are diagnosed at a more advanced stage than cancers identified at screening, so they are more often treated by mastectomy. Reviewing interval cancers is essential for quality control in screening programs.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
乳腺癌筛查计划中的间期癌(2007-2018 年)。特征和预后
背景和目的分析2007年至2018年期间,在一项基于人群的乳腺癌筛查计划中,共进行了六轮筛查和间期癌症诊断的放射学和组织学特征。材料和方法我们分析了在筛查中发现的1395例癌症和300例间期癌症,这些癌症发生在研究期间每两年接受一次数字乳腺X光检查的50至69岁女性中。为了对间期癌进行分类,我们在每一轮检查结束后进行了回顾性复查(盲阅后进行非盲阅),记录了放射学检查结果、乳腺密度、组织学特征、表型和手术治疗。回顾性研究发现,在假阴性病例中,最常见的放射学发现是肿块/不对称(64%)、钙化(16%)和变形(13%);在征象极少的病例中,最常见的放射学发现是肿块/不对称(58%)和钙化(31%):筛查发现的癌症与间期癌症的组织学特征存在明显差异:T1a-b(9% 的间期癌症与 34% 的筛查发现的癌症相比;P < .001);T1c(30% 的间期癌症与 44% 的筛查发现的癌症相比;P < .001);T2 或以上(61% 的间期癌症与 22% 的筛查发现的癌症相比;P < .在更具侵袭性亚型(HER2+ 和三阴性)的病例比例方面,筛查发现的癌症与间期癌症也存在显著差异:间期癌症中接受乳房切除术治疗的比例明显更高(80% 对比起筛查发现的 67%;P <.001)。结论约 20% 的间期癌症在筛查乳房 X 光检查中很明显。间期癌最常见的放射学发现是不对称/肿块。与筛查发现的癌症相比,间期癌的诊断处于更晚期,因此更常采用乳房切除术进行治疗。复查间期癌对于筛查项目的质量控制至关重要。
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 去求助
来源期刊
RADIOLOGIA
RADIOLOGIA RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING-
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
7.70%
发文量
105
审稿时长
52 days
期刊介绍: La mejor revista para conocer de primera mano los originales más relevantes en la especialidad y las revisiones, casos y notas clínicas de mayor interés profesional. Además es la Publicación Oficial de la Sociedad Española de Radiología Médica.
期刊最新文献
Complicaciones de la rinosinusitis aguda. Una revisión clínica radiológica Eficacia y seguridad de la embolización de arterias uterinas en el manejo de la hemorragia posparto Carcinoma de intervalo en un programa de cribado de cáncer de mama (2007-2018). Características y pronóstico Adenocarcinoma de pulmón: Presentaciones radiológicas características Fractura ósea tras un traumatismo menor en la enfermedad de Pyle: un caso poco frecuente en un adulto
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1