Skip to main content
NCBI home page
The Western Journal of Medicine logoLink to The Western Journal of Medicine
. 1991 Jan;154(1):36–39.

Experience with indeterminate mammograms.

P De Neef 1, J Gandara 1
PMCID: PMC1002672  PMID: 2024508

Abstract

Most radiologists recommend follow-up mammography in 3 to 6 months for asymptomatic patients with mammographic lesions that do not appear suspicious enough to warrant immediate biopsy. In this retrospective cohort study, the medical records of 776 patients were audited 24 to 35 months after mammography to estimate the frequency of indeterminate lesions, the probability of malignancy, and the rate of patients' compliance with recommendations. Almost 2% of patients retested after an indeterminate mammogram were found to have breast cancer (95% confidence limits 0.2% and 5.9%). Only 26% of the patients retested during the audit period had the test within the suggested upper limit of 6 months. We conclude that timely follow-up after an indeterminate mammogram is advisable and that for the population we studied, compliance with this recommendation is low.

Full text

PDF
36

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Brenner R. J. Medicolegal aspects of screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1989 Jul;153(1):53–56. doi: 10.2214/ajr.153.1.53. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Brenner R. J., Sickles E. A. Acceptability of periodic follow-up as an alternative to biopsy for mammographically detected lesions interpreted as probably benign. Radiology. 1989 Jun;171(3):645–646. doi: 10.1148/radiology.171.3.2497496. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Cyrlak D. Induced costs of low-cost screening mammography. Radiology. 1988 Sep;168(3):661–663. doi: 10.1148/radiology.168.3.3406395. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Eddy D. M. Screening for breast cancer. Ann Intern Med. 1989 Sep 1;111(5):389–399. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-111-5-389. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Freundlich I. M. Nonpalpable lesions detected with mammography. Radiology. 1988 Apr;167(1):281–281. doi: 10.1148/radiology.167.1.281-a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Hall F. M. Screening mammography--potential problems on the horizon. N Engl J Med. 1986 Jan 2;314(1):53–55. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198601023140111. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Hall F. M., Storella J. M., Silverstone D. Z., Wyshak G. Nonpalpable breast lesions: recommendations for biopsy based on suspicion of carcinoma at mammography. Radiology. 1988 May;167(2):353–358. doi: 10.1148/radiology.167.2.3282256. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Heuser L., Spratt J. S., Polk H. C., Jr Growth rates of primary breast cancers. Cancer. 1979 May;43(5):1888–1894. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(197905)43:5<1888::aid-cncr2820430545>3.0.co;2-m. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Homer M. J. Imaging features and management of characteristically benign and probably benign breast lesions. Radiol Clin North Am. 1987 Sep;25(5):939–951. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Homer M. J. Nonpalpable mammographic abnormalities: timing the follow-up studies. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1981 May;136(5):923–926. doi: 10.2214/ajr.136.5.923. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Kopans D. B., Swann C. A. Observations on mammographic screening and false-positive mammograms. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1988 Apr;150(4):785–786. doi: 10.2214/ajr.150.4.785. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Moskowitz M. Impact of a priori medical decisions on screening for breast cancer. Radiology. 1989 Jun;171(3):605–608. doi: 10.1148/radiology.171.3.2717727. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Robertson C. L., Kopans D. B. Communication problems after mammographic screening. Radiology. 1989 Aug;172(2):443–444. doi: 10.1148/radiology.172.2.2748825. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Sickles E. A. Mammographic features of 300 consecutive nonpalpable breast cancers. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1986 Apr;146(4):661–663. doi: 10.2214/ajr.146.4.661. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Spratt J. S., Spratt J. A. Cancer of the breast. Growth rates. Major Probl Clin Surg. 1979;5:197–220. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Spring D. B., Kimbrell-Wilmot K. Evaluating the success of mammography at the local level: how to conduct an audit of your practice. Radiol Clin North Am. 1987 Sep;25(5):983–992. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Wertheimer M. D., Costanza M. E., Dodson T. F., D'Orsi C., Pastides H., Zapka J. G. Increasing the effort toward breast cancer detection. JAMA. 1986 Mar 14;255(10):1311–1315. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Wolfe J. N., Buck K. A., Salane M., Parekh N. J. Xeroradiography of the breast: overview of 21,057 consecutive cases. Radiology. 1987 Nov;165(2):305–311. doi: 10.1148/radiology.165.2.3659348. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Western Journal of Medicine are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES