Few data are available on bilateral breast cancer in the screening population. The aim of this study was to determine patient and tumor characteristics of women with bilateral breast cancer at screening mammography. We included all 350,637 screening mammography examinations of women participating in a biennial screening program in a southern screening region of the Netherlands between May 1998 and January 2010. For referred women, all breast imaging reports, biopsy results, and surgery reports during one year after referral were collected. We compared patient and tumor characteristics of referred women with a diagnosis of bilateral breast cancer or unilateral breast cancer at workup. Bilateral or unilateral breast cancer had been diagnosed in respectively 40 (2.2%) and 1766 (97.8%) of 1806 referred women. Women with bilateral or unilateral breast cancer did not differ significantly in mean age, mammographic breast density, family history of breast cancer, or use of hormone replacement therapy. Compared with index cancers, contralateral cancers comprised significantly more lobular cancers (P = 0.02). Tumor size, mitotic activity, and estrogen receptor status were comparable for both groups, but contralateral cancers had a significantly lower risk of lymph node metastases (P = 0.03). Compared to unilateral breast cancer, contralateral malignancies in women with bilateral breast cancer comprised significantly more lobular cancers (P = 0.004) and lymph node negative cancers (P = 0.01). Contralateral breast cancers detected at screening comprise more lobular cancers and show less nodal involvement than index cancers or unilateral cancers. No differences are observed with respect to other patient and tumor characteristics.

The sensitivity of screening mammography in the detection of bilateral breast cancer is disappointingly low. Both screening radiologists and clinical radiologists should pay vigorous attention to the contralateral breast to detect bilateral malignancies without diagnostic delay.

A 26-year-old man presented with signs of raised intracranial pressure. CT and MRI of the head demonstrated two separate lesions in the posterior fossa. The radiological differential diagnoses included multiple meningiomas, schwannomas, neurofibromas and subependymomas. Both lesions were surgically resected. Histopathological examination revealed localisations of a leptomeningeal melanocytoma. Leptomeningeal melanocytoma is a rare tumour of the central nervous system. Generally, it has a good prognosis if radical resection can be performed. In cases of subtotal resection, adjuvant radiotherapy should be considered. Local recurrences are common. Less frequently, leptomeningeal metastases and, on rare occasions, distant metastases or progression to malignant melanoma have been described. We describe an unusual case with multiple localisations of melanocytoma in the posterior fossa and spinal canal, with the emphasis being on the radiological findings and diagnosis of this rare tumour. After surgery of the brain, this patient was irradiated on the craniospinal axis.

Although malpractice lawsuits are frequently related to a delayed breast cancer diagnosis in symptomatic patients, information on claims at European screening mammography programs is lacking. We determined the type and frequency of malpractice claims at a Dutch breast cancer screening region. We included all 85,274 women (351,009 screens) who underwent biennial screening mammography at a southern breast screening region in The Netherlands between 1997 and 2009. Two screening radiologists reviewed the screening mammograms of all screen detected cancers and interval cancers and determined whether the cancer had been missed at the previous screen or at the latest screen, respectively. We analyzed all correspondence between the screening organization, clinicians and screened women, and collected complaints and claims until September 2011. At review, 20.9% (308/1,475) of screen detected cancers and 24.3% (163/670) of interval cancers were considered to be missed at a previous screen. A total of 19 women (of which 2, 6 and 11 women had been screened between 1997 and 2001 (102,439 screens), 2001 and 2005 (114,740 screens) and 2005 and 2009 (133,830 screens), respectively) had contacted the screening organization for additional information about their screen detected cancer or interval cancer, but filed no claim. Three other women directly initiated an insurance claim for financial compensation of their interval cancer without previously having contacted the screening organization. We conclude that screening-related claims were rarely encountered, although many screen detected cancers and interval cancers had been missed at a previous screen. A small but increasing proportion of women sought additional information about their breast cancer from the screening organization.Many countries have introduced screening mammography programs with the aim to reduce breast cancer mortality. 1 Essential for reducing morbidity and mortality is the early detection of breast cancers, as a diagnostic delay lowers breast-conserving treatment options and worsens prognosis. 2,3 Unfortunately, a delayed diagnosis resulting from a missed cancer at screening is not rare. Certain cancers are just not visible at screening mammography, whereas others are misinterpreted or overlooked. 4,5 Interpretation of mammograms is one of the most difficult tasks in radiology and the sensitivity of screening mammography for breast cancer detection ranges from 70% to 80%. 6,7 Nevertheless, the public's expectations of the efficacy of screening mammography are high, and diagnostic errors can have major legal consequences for the screening radiologist.An Italian study observed, over a period of 12 years, a marked rise in malpractice claims related to diagnostic mammography in symptomatic women. 8 In the United States, a delay in breast cancer diagnosis is nowadays the most prevalent and the second most expensive condition resulting in malpractice lawsuits. 9,10 The most common defendant in these lawsuits is the interpreting radiologist and as a consequence the ...

Background:In the current study, mammography adherence of women who had experienced a false-positive referral is evaluated, with emphasis on the probability of receiving surveillance mammography outside the national screening programme.Methods:We included 424 703 consecutive screens and collected imaging, biopsy and surgery reports of 3463 women who experienced a false-positive referral. Adherence to screening, both in and outside the screening programme, was evaluated.Results:Two years after the false-positive referral, overall screening adherence was 94.6%, with 64.7% of women returning to the national screening programme, compared with 94.9% of women re-attending the screening programme after a negative screen (P<0.0001). Four years after the false-positive screen, the overall adherence had decreased to 85.2% (P<0.0001) with a similar proportion of the women re-attending the screening programme (64.4%) and a lower proportion (20.8%) having clinical surveillance mammography. Women who had experienced a false-positive screen at their first screening round were less likely to adhere to mammography than women with an abnormal finding at one of the following screening rounds (92.4% vs 95.5%, P<0.0001).Conclusion:Overall screening adherence after previous false-positive referral was comparable to the re-attendance rate of women with a negative screen at 2-year follow-up. Overall adherence decreased 4 years after previous false-positive referral from 94.6% to 85.2%, with a relatively high estimate of women who continue with clinical surveillance mammography (20.8%). Women with false-positive screens should be made aware of the importance to re-attend future screening rounds, as a way to improve the effectiveness of the screening programme.