Breast screening: What can the interval cancer review teach us? Are we perhaps being a bit too hard on ourselves?

Purpose The aim of this study was to determine the features that make interval cancers apparent on the preceding screening mammogram and determine whether changes in the ways of performing the interval cancer review will affect the true interval cancer rate. Materials and methods This study was approved by the clinical governance committee. Mammograms of women diagnosed with an interval cancer were included in the study if they had been allocated to either the “suspicious signs” group or “subtle signs” group, during the historic interval cancer review. Three radiologists, individually and blinded to the site of interval cancer, reviewed the mammograms and documented the presence, site, characteristics and classification of any abnormality. Findings were compared with the appearances of the abnormality at the site of subsequent cancer development by a different breast radiologist. The chi-squared test was used in the analysis of the results, seeking associations between recall concordance and cancer mammographic or histological characteristics. Results 111/590 interval cancers fulfilled the study inclusion criteria. In 17% of the cases none of the readers identified the relevant abnormality on the screening mammogram. 1/3 readers identified the relevant lesion in 22% of the cases, 2/3 readers in 28% of cases and all 3 readers in 33% of cases. The commonest unanimously recalled abnormality was microcalcification and the most challenging mammographic abnormality to detect was asymmetric density. We did not find any statistically significant association between recall concordance and time to interval cancer, position of lesion in the breast, breast density or cancer grade. Conclusion Even the simple step of performing an independent blinded review of interval cancers reduces the rate of interval cancers classified as missed by up to 39%.