Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36792275›Full record

ReviewSeminars in ultrasound, CT, and MR2023

Audit of Prior Screening Mammograms of Screen-Detected Cancers: Implications for the Delay in Breast Cancer Detection.

Gopal R Vijayargahavan, Jade Watkins, Monique Tyminski, Shambhavi Venkataraman, Nita Amornsiripanitch, Adrienne Newburg, Erica Ghosh, Srinivasan Vedantham

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Seminars in ultrasound, CT, and MR, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.1field-weighted citation impact, top 50% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Gopal R VijayargahavanDepartment of Radiology, UMass Chan Medical School, Worcester, MA. Electronic address: Gopal.Vijayaraghavan@umassmemorial.org.
Jade WatkinsDepartment of Radiology, UMass Chan Medical School, Worcester, MA.
Monique TyminskiDepartment of Radiology, UMass Chan Medical School, Worcester, MA.
Shambhavi VenkataramanDepartment of Radiology, Steward Medical Group, Brockton, MA.
Nita AmornsiripanitchDepartment of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA.
Adrienne NewburgDepartment of Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA.
Erica GhoshDepartment of Radiology, Atrius Health, Boston, MA.
Srinivasan VedanthamDepartment of Medical Imaging, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ.
University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School · USBanner - University Medical Center Tucson · USBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center · USBrigham and Women's Hospital · USSignature Healthcare Brockton Hospital · US

Funding

Towards screening with high-resolution, low-dose, dedicated breast CTR01CA199044 · NCI · UNIV OF MASSACHUSETTS MED SCH WORCESTER · PI SRINIVASAN VEDANTHAM · 2016 to 2026
$6.1M
Upright, Low-dose, High-resolution, 3D Breast CTR01CA241709 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA · PI VEDANTHAM, SRINIVASAN · 2019 to 2023
$3.6M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA199044NCI NIH HHS R01 CA241709
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

When cancer is detected in a screening mammogram, on occasion retrospective review of prior screening (pre-index) mammograms indicates a likely presence of cancer. These missed cancers during pre-index screens constitute a delay in detection and diagnosis. This study was undertaken to quantify the missed cancer rate by auditing pre-index screens to improve the quality of mammography screening practice. From a cohort of 135 screen-detected cancers, 120 pre-index screening mammograms could be retrieved and served as the study sample. A consensus read by 2 radiologists who interpreted the pre-index screens in an unblinded manner with full knowledge of cancer location, cancer type, lesion type, and pathology served as the truth or reference standard. Five radiologists interpreted the pre-index screens in a blinded manner. Established performance metrics such as sensitivity and specificity were quantified for each reader in interpreting these pre-index screens in a blinded manner. All five radiologists detected lesions in 8/120 (6.7%) screens. Excluding the 2 readers whose performance was close to random, all the 3 remaining readers detected lesions in 13 pre-index screens. This indicates that there is a delay in diagnosis by at least one cycle from 8/120 (6.7%) to 13/120 (10.8%). There were no observable trends in terms of either the cancer type or the lesion type. Auditing prior screening mammograms in screen-detected cancers can help in identifying the proportion of cases that were missed during interpretation and help in quantifying the delay in breast cancer detection.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMammographyRadiologistsSensitivity and SpecificityBreast cancerMammographyMissed cancerQuality improvement

Identifiers

PMID36792275
PMCPMC9932301
OpenAlexW4313251647

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.