Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Classifying interval cancers

A A Duncan1, M G Wallis

  • 1Warwickshire, Solihull and Coventry Breast Screening Unit, Coventry and Warwickshire Hospital, UK.

Clinical Radiology
|November 1, 1995
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

An optoacoustic imaging feature set to characterise blood vessels surrounding benign and malignant breast lesions.

Photoacoustics·2022
Same author

Outcomes of male patients attending the symptomatic breast unit: adherence to local and national imaging guidelines and effectiveness of clinical examination and imaging in detecting male breast cancer.

Clinical radiology·2021
Same author

An analysis of screen-detected invasive cancers by grade in the English breast cancer screening programme: are we failing to detect sufficient small grade 3 cancers?

European radiology·2020
Same author

Correction to: An analysis of 11.3 million screening tests examining the association between recall and cancer detection rates in the English NHS breast cancer screening programme.

European radiology·2019
Same author

Evidence for avoiding the biopsy of typical fibroadenomas in women aged 25-29 years.

Clinical radiology·2019
Same author

Final Results of the Prospective FH02 Mammographic Surveillance Study of Women Aged 35-39 at Increased Familial Risk of Breast Cancer.

EClinicalMedicine·2019
Same journal

Where can we improve? An evaluation of discrepancies between radiology resident and consultant reports for noncontrast head computed tomography (NCHCT) scans in the emergency department at a tertiary care centre.

Clinical radiology·2026
Same journal

Proton beam therapy: neuroradiology considerations and challenges.

Clinical radiology·2026
Same journal

Weight-based contrast media volume reduction in lower limb computed tomography angiography: a prospective feasibility study.

Clinical radiology·2026
Same journal

Diagnostic accuracy of flat panel computed tomography for acute stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies.

Clinical radiology·2026
Same journal

Nuclear medicine techniques in gynaecological malignancy: a review of best practice.

Clinical radiology·2026
Same journal

Deep learning reconstruction dual-energy computed tomography for gastrointestinal system tumors: low-kiloelectron volt imaging vs routine imaging.

Clinical radiology·2026
See all related articles

Classifying interval breast cancers is inconsistent across screening centers. Reviewing mammograms in isolation, rather than mixed with normal films, increased false negatives by 10%. A standardized consensus review method is recommended for quality assurance.

Area of Science:

  • Radiology
  • Oncology
  • Public Health

Background:

  • Interval breast cancers, diagnosed between screening mammograms, lack a standardized classification method.
  • Classification of interval cancers is a quality assurance (QA) standard for the National Health Service Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP).
  • Current practices for reviewing interval cancers vary significantly among UK screening centers.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To investigate the methods used by different UK breast screening centers for classifying interval cancers.
  • To compare the impact of different review methods on the classification of interval cancers, specifically false negative rates.
  • To propose a standardized method for interval cancer review to improve consistency and comparability.

Main Methods:

Related Experiment Videos

  • A questionnaire was distributed to 17 UK regional breast screening QA centers to assess their interval cancer review protocols.
  • A simulated film viewing exercise was conducted with six radiologists reviewing 50 interval cancers using three distinct methods: isolated review, mixed with screening films, and consensus review.
  • False negative classifications were determined based on whether abnormalities were identified by one, a majority, or all reviewing radiologists.

    • Main Results:

    • Eighty percent of responding centers had a formal interval cancer review method, but only 33% simulated screening conditions.
    • Reviewing interval cancers in isolation, compared to mixed with normal screening films, increased false negative classifications by 10%.
    • False negative rates varied widely (4% to 56%) depending on the consensus criteria used.

    Conclusions:

    • The method of reviewing mammograms significantly impacts the classification of interval breast cancers, particularly false negative rates.
    • A lack of standardized review protocols hinders consistent quality assurance and inter-center comparisons within the NHSBSP.
    • A recommended standard review method involves mixing interval cancer films with normal screening films and utilizing a consensus opinion from at least three external reviewers.