Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 18, 2026
Detection of Architectural Distortion in Prior Mammograms via Analysis of Oriented Patterns
Published on: August 30, 2013
Can missed breast cancer be recognized by regular peer auditing on screening mammography?
Huay-Ben Pan1, Tsung-Lung Yang, Giu-Cheng Hsu
1Department of Radiology, Kaohsiung Veterans General Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan, ROC.
Background:
This study was conducted to investigate whether detectable missed breast cancers could be distinguished from truly false negative images in a mammographic screening by a regular peer auditing.
Methods:
Between 2004 and 2007, a total of 311,193 free nationwide biennial mammographic screenings were performed for 50- to 69-year-old women in Taiwan. Retrospectively comparing the records in Taiwan's Cancer registry, 1283 cancers were detected (4.1 per 1000). Of the total, 176 (0.6 per 1000) initial mammographic negative assessments were reported to have cancers (128 traditional films and 48 laser-printed digital images). We selected 186 true negative films (138 traditional films and 48 laser-printed ones) as control group. These were seeded into 4815 films of 2008 images to be audited in 2009. Thirty-four auditors interpreted all the films in a single-blind, randomized, pair-control study. The performance of 34 auditors was analyzed by chi-square test. A p value of < 0.05 was considered significant.
Results:
Eight (6 traditional and 2 digital films) of the 176 false negative films were not reported by the auditors (missing rate of 4.5%). Of this total, 87 false negatives were reassessed as positive, while 29 of the 186 true negatives were reassessed as positive, making the overall performance of the 34 auditors in interpreting the false negatives and true negatives a specificity of 84.4% and sensitivity of 51.8%. The specificity and sensitivity in traditional films and laser-printed films were 98.6% versus 43.8% and 41.8% versus 78.3%, respectively. Almost 42% of the traditional false negative films had positive reassessment by the auditors, showing a significant difference from the initial screeners (p < 0.001). The specificity of their reinterpretation of laser-printed films was obviously low.
Conclusion:
Almost 42% of the false negative traditional films were judged as missed cancers in this study. A peer auditing should reduce the probability of missed cancers.
