Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39545979›Full record

ReviewEuropean radiology2025

Misdiagnosis in breast imaging: a statement paper from European Society Breast Imaging (EUSOBI)-Part 2: Main causes of errors in breast imaging and recommendations from European Society of Breast Imaging to limit misdiagnosis.

Isabelle Thomassin-Naggara, Alexandra Athanasiou, Fleur Kilburn-Toppin, Gabor Forrai, Miruna Ispas, Mihai Lesaru, Elisabetta Giannotti, Katja Pinker-Domenig, Chantal Van Ongeval, Ritse M Mann and 3 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in European radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

13 authors.

Isabelle Thomassin-NaggaraSorbonne Université, Paris, France. isabelle.thomassin@aphp.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0919-0133
Alexandra AthanasiouBreast Imaging Department, MITERA Hospital, Athens, Greece.
Fleur Kilburn-ToppinRadiology Department, University of Cambridge, Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK.
Gabor ForraiDuna Medical Center, GE-RAD Kft, Budapest, Hungary.
Miruna IspasDepartment of Radiology, Imaging and Interventional Radiology Fundeni Clinical Institute, Bucharest, Romania.
Mihai LesaruDepartment of Radiology, Imaging and Interventional Radiology Fundeni Clinical Institute, Bucharest, Romania.
Elisabetta GiannottiBreast Imaging Department, MITERA Hospital, Athens, Greece.
Katja Pinker-DomenigDepartment of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Division of Molecular and Gender Imaging, Medical University of Vienna/Vienna General Hospital, Vienna, Austria.
Chantal Van OngevalDepartment of Radiology, Universitair Ziekenhuis Leuven, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Ritse M MannDepartment of Medical Imaging, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Fiona GilbertRadiology Department, University of Cambridge, Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK.
Federica PediconiDepartment of Radiological, Pathological and Oncological Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
EUSOBI Board

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

importanceBreast cancer is one of the leading causes of negligence claims in radiology. The objective of this document is to describe the specific main causes of errors in breast imaging and provide European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI) recommendations to try to minimize these. OBSERVATIONS: Technical failures represent 17% of all mammographic diagnostic negligence claims. Mammography quality control protocol and dedicated training for technologists and radiologists are essential. Lack of consideration of the clinical context is a second critical issue, as a clinical abnormality is found in 80% of malpractice claims. EUSOBI emphasizes the importance of communication and clinical examination before the diagnostic investigation. Detection errors or misapplications of the lexicon or Breast Imaging Reporting Data System (BI-RADS) score account for 5% of malpractice claims and should be reduced by limiting radiologists' distraction or fatigue, and being aware of satisfaction of search errors and the importance of a personal systematic review. Errors related to pathological concordance and MDT review can be limited by the use of markers after biopsy and the use of standardized reports, which can aid communication with other specialities. Finally, errors related to tumor or patient factors should be discussed, considering the use of contrast-enhanced mammography and magnetic resonance imaging.

conclusionSeveral factors are responsible for misdiagnosis in breast cancer, including errors in the practice of the technician and/or radiologist (technical failures, lack of consideration of the clinical context, incorrect application of the BI-RADS score, false reassurances), lack of communication with other specialists or with the patient, and the type of tumor and breast parenchyma. KEY POINTS: Question What factors most contribute to and what implications stem from misdiagnosis in breast imaging? Findings Ongoing training and education for radiologists and other healthcare providers, as well as interdisciplinary collaboration and communication is paramount. Clinical relevance Misdiagnosis in breast imaging can have significant implications for patients, healthcare providers, and the entire healthcare system.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsDiagnostic ErrorsMammographyEuropeFemaleHumansMalpracticeSocieties, MedicalBreast cancerMammographyMisdiagnosisMRIUltrasonography

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.