Elsevier

Clinical Radiology

Volume 50, Issue 11, November 1995, Pages 774-777
Clinical Radiology

Classifying interval cancers

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0009-9260(05)83218-0Get rights and content

No definitive way of classifying interval breast cancers (cancers presenting between screening rounds) has been determined, yet their number and classification forms one of the quality assurance (QA) standards for the National Health Service Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP). This study was undertaken to identify how different screening centres undertake this process, and to compare the classifications obtained when a test set of mammograms was reviewed using three different methods.

A questionnaire was sent to the 17 Regional UK breast screening QA centres. Twelve (80%) of the 15 centres completing the questionnaire had a formal method for reviewing interval cancers. Five of these (33%) attempted to simulate screening by mixing the interval cancers with other screening films. In 11 (73%) centres, a group (size range 3–14) of radiologists was involved.

In a simulated film viewing exercise we assessed whether different methods of classification would alter the number of interval cancers classified as false negative (where an abnormality suspicious of malignancy can be identified on review of the original screening films). Six radiologists reviewed a set of 50 interval cancers by three different methods: independent reading of the interval cancers mixed with screening mammograms; independent reading of the interval cancers on their own; and finally a consensus opinion of the interval cancers alone using the films taken at diagnosis. No discussion or review of these cases had taken place prior to the study.

The number of interval cancers classified as false negative increased by 10% when they were reviewed in isolation compared to review among ‘normal’ screening films. The false negative rate varied widely (4% to 56% P<0.01) depending on the criteria required to fulfil a false negative interval cancer classification—whether only one, a majority, or all of the radiologists were required to see the abnormality on the original screening films.

In order for inter-unit and regional comparisons to be useful, a standard review method of mixing the interval cancer films with normal screening films and using a consensus opinion by a minimum of three external reviewers is suggested.

References (14)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (37)

  • Breast screening: What can the interval cancer review teach us? Are we perhaps being a bit too hard on ourselves?

    2017, European Journal of Radiology
    Citation Excerpt :

    False negative (suspicious) (An abnormality is clearly visible and warrants assessment) [4]. The interval cancer review is a valuable educational tool for film readers as well as a quality assurance process, although the process by which it happens differs between centres, causing variations in the incidence of true interval cancers [5]. The aim of this study was to determine the features that make interval cancers apparent on the preceding screening mammogram and to determine whether changes in the ways of performing the interval cancer review will affect the true interval cancer rate.

  • Film reading in the East Midlands Breast Screening Programme - Are we missing opportunities for earlier diagnosis?

    2014, Clinical Radiology
    Citation Excerpt :

    This detailed monitoring of the programme should prospectively translate into fewer FN interval cancers as diagnostic work-up at assessment comes under greater scrutiny. Interval cancer classification involves a degree of subjectivity due to the method of review, the number of readers involved, and tolerances required to agree a radiological categorization.9,10 Combining radiological categories 2 (uncertain) and 3 (suspicious) gives a similar outcome.

  • Interval Breast Cancer

    2009, The Breast: Comprehensive Management of Benign and Malignant Diseases
  • Interval breast cancers in screening: The effect of mammography review method on classification

    2007, Breast
    Citation Excerpt :

    Our study differs in the design we used, which allowed us to compare phases of increasing extent of information, and to quantify relative differences in classification of interval cases. A similar study design was used by Duncan and Wallis,10 but that study failed to demonstrate increasing false negative rate when comparing blinded (IC only) to informed review with knowledge of cancer side, site and pattern. The aim of blinded review with interval cases seeded in a screen negative series is to reproduce screening conditions where cancer prevalence is very low and may (in addition to fatigue, loss of attention) lead to a false negative report.

  • Radiological surveillance of interval breast cancers in screening programmes

    2006, Lancet Oncology
    Citation Excerpt :

    Standardisation of the classification of interval breast cancers can be difficult because it is affected by the methodology of the review process13,16–22 and is inherently subjective. Three factors are especially important.15–22 First, the extent to which the review process is done in an informed or masked manner; ie, whether reviewers are aware that they are looking at screens that include interval breast cancers, and whether they are reviewing individually identified cases.

View all citing articles on Scopus
View full text