中文(简体)
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?

只有注册用户可以翻译文章
登陆注册
链接已保存到剪贴板
Kate Gower-Thomas
Hilary M P Fielder
Lucy Branston
Sarah Greening
Helen Beer
Cerilan Rogers

关键词

抽象

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.

加入我们的脸书专页

科学支持的最完整的草药数据库

  • 支持55种语言
  • 科学支持的草药疗法
  • 通过图像识别草药
  • 交互式GPS地图-在位置标记草药(即将推出)
  • 阅读与您的搜索相关的科学出版物
  • 通过药效搜索药草
  • 组织您的兴趣并及时了解新闻研究,临床试验和专利

输入症状或疾病,并阅读可能有用的草药,输入草药并查看所使用的疾病和症状。
*所有信息均基于已发表的科学研究

Google Play badgeApp Store badge