Article ID | Journal | Published Year | Pages | File Type |
---|---|---|---|---|
8784209 | Revista de Senología y Patología Mamaria | 2017 | 8 Pages |
Abstract
Errors form part of our work and it is important to learn about them so that they can be avoided. One of the most striking findings repeated in the literature is that, in the context of screening, between 25% and 75% of cancers can be seen on previous mammograms reported as normal. However, careful analysis of the figures reveals that a large proportion of these visible non-reported cancers appear as non-specific or benign findings, and thus do not represent true errors. It is important to keep in mind the concept of visible but not recognisable cancer, in order not to mistakenly identify something as an error. Likewise, we should not confuse non-specific findings (which objectively do not suggest cancer) with subtle findings (which objectively do suggest cancer, although they are difficult to detect). In the second part of our article, we review, one-by-one, the nine errors most frequently cited in the literature and provide strategies for their avoidance. These are (or are associated with): one-view findings, incorrect use of BI-RADS, “satisfaction of search”, slow-growing cancer, dense breasts, benignancy with malignancy, technical or positioning errors, poor correlation among imaging techniques, and poor correlation with the clinical context.
Keywords
Related Topics
Health Sciences
Medicine and Dentistry
Obstetrics, Gynecology and Women's Health
Authors
Javier Torréns MartÃnez, Gloria Liaño Esteso, Verónica Gamero Medina, Josefa Galobardes Monge,