Résumé
Purpose: To retrospectively review the causes of false-negative results on prior magnetic resonance (MR) imaging studies in patients who developed breast cancer as revealed on a follow-up MR imaging study and to determine the presumptive causes of these false-negative findings.
Materials and Methods: Fifty-eight pairs of MR imaging studies from one institution were assessed, consisting of a prior study without a diagnosis of cancer and a diagnostic study with subsequent findings of 60 cancers in 58 women at MR imaging (mean interval between prior and diagnostic MR examinations, 13.8 months). Two radiologists reviewed in consensus, in a nonblinded fashion, each pair of MR studies, comparing the diagnostic and the prior MR imaging studies to evaluate the rate of false-negative findings. The prospective reports were then analyzed to classify false-negatives findings in breast enhancement of breast cancers not identified at the time of imaging, potentially misinterpreted, and mismanaged. False-negative results on prior MR studies were retrospectively reassessed to identify possibly reasons why cancers had been not recognized, potentially misinterpreted, or mismanaged.
Results: Twenty-eight (47% [95% confidence interval {CI}: 34%, 59%]) of the 60 cancers were retrospectively diagnosed as Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System grade 3, 4, or 5 lesions. Analysis of the prospective reports showed that six lesions (10% [95% CI: 2%, 18%]) had been not identified at the time of diagnosis, 15 lesions (25% [95% CI: 14%, 36%]) were potentially misinterpreted, and seven lesions (12% [95% CI: 3%, 20%]) were mismanaged. The main causes of misinterpretation were smooth margins of a mass (n = 4), stability in size (n = 3), and location of a nonmass in a postsurgical area (n = 5). Mismanagement was mainly due to inadequate correlations between MR imaging and ultrasonographic (US) features, with inaccurate sampling with US guidance in five cases.
Conclusion: In patients with breast cancer seen at MR imaging, retrospective evaluation of the prior MR imaging studies showed potential observer error in 47% of cases, resulting more from misinterpretation than from nonrecognition or mismanagement of cancers.