Swahili
Albanian
Arabic
Armenian
Azerbaijani
Belarusian
Bengali
Bosnian
Catalan
Czech
Danish
Deutsch
Dutch
English
Estonian
Finnish
Français
Greek
Haitian Creole
Hebrew
Hindi
Hungarian
Icelandic
Indonesian
Irish
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Latvian
Lithuanian
Macedonian
Mongolian
Norwegian
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Romanian
Russian
Serbian
Slovak
Slovenian
Spanish
Swahili
Swedish
Turkish
Ukrainian
Vietnamese
Български
中文(简体)
中文(繁體)
Clinical Radiology 2002-May

Reviewing interval cancers: time well spent?

Watumiaji waliosajiliwa tu ndio wanaweza kutafsiri nakala
Ingia / Ingia
Kiungo kimehifadhiwa kwenye clipboard
Kate Gower-Thomas
Hilary M P Fielder
Lucy Branston
Sarah Greening
Helen Beer
Cerilan Rogers

Maneno muhimu

Kikemikali

OBJECTIVE

To categorize interval cancers, and thus identify false-negatives, following prevalent and incident screens in the Welsh breast screening programme.

METHODS

Breast Test Wales (BTW) Llandudno, Cardiff and Swansea breast screening units.

METHODS

Five hundred and sixty interval breast cancers identified following negative mammographic screening between 1989 and 1997 were reviewed by eight screening radiologists. The blind review was achieved by mixing the screening films of women who subsequently developed an interval cancer with screen negative films of women who did not develop cancer, in a ratio of 4 to 1. Another radiologist used patients' symptomatic films to record a reference against which the reviewers' reports of the screening films were compared. Interval cancers were categorized as 'true', 'occult', 'false-negative' or 'unclassified' interval cancers or interval cancers with minimal signs, based on the National Health Service breast screening programme (NHSBSP) guidelines.

RESULTS

Of the classifiable interval films, 32% were false-negatives, 55% were true intervals and 12% occult. The proportion of false-negatives following incident screens was half that following prevalent screens (P = 0.004). Forty percent of the seed films were recalled by the panel.

CONCLUSIONS

Low false-negative interval cancer rates following incident screens (18%) versus prevalent screens (36%) suggest that lower cancer detection rates at incident screens may have resulted from fewer cancers than expected being present, rather than from a failure to detect tumours. The panel method for categorizing interval cancers has significant flaws as the results vary markedly with different protocol and is no more accurate than other, quicker and more timely methods.

Jiunge na ukurasa
wetu wa facebook

Hifadhidata kamili ya mimea ya dawa inayoungwa mkono na sayansi

  • Inafanya kazi katika lugha 55
  • Uponyaji wa mitishamba unaungwa mkono na sayansi
  • Kutambua mimea kwa picha
  • Ramani ya GPS inayoshirikiana
  • Soma machapisho ya kisayansi yanayohusiana na utafutaji wako
  • Tafuta mimea ya dawa na athari zao
  • Panga maslahi yako na fanya tarehe ya utafiti wa habari, majaribio ya kliniki na ruhusu

Andika dalili au ugonjwa na usome juu ya mimea ambayo inaweza kusaidia, chapa mimea na uone magonjwa na dalili ambazo hutumiwa dhidi yake.
* Habari zote zinategemea utafiti wa kisayansi uliochapishwa

Google Play badgeApp Store badge