TY - JOUR
T1 - Misdiagnosis in breast imaging
T2 - a statement paper from European Society Breast Imaging (EUSOBI)—Part 2: Main causes of errors in breast imaging and recommendations from European Society of Breast Imaging to limit misdiagnosis
AU - Thomassin-Naggara, Isabelle
AU - Athanasiou, Alexandra
AU - Kilburn-Toppin, Fleur
AU - Forrai, Gabor
AU - Ispas, Miruna
AU - Lesaru, Mihai
AU - Giannotti, Elisabetta
AU - Pinker-Domenig, Katja
AU - Van Ongeval, Chantal
AU - Mann, Ritse M.
AU - Gilbert, Fiona J.
AU - Pediconi, Federica
AU - Zackrisson, Sophia
AU - Sella, Tamar
AU - Sardanelli, Francesco
AU - Pijnappel, Ruud
AU - Fallenberg, Eva M.
AU - Kuhl, Christiane K.
AU - Helbich, Thomas
AU - Fuchsjäger, Michael
AU - Gilbert, Fiona J.
AU - Clauser, Paola
AU - Herrero, Julia Camps
AU - Baltzer, Pascal
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to European Society of Radiology 2024.
PY - 2025/5
Y1 - 2025/5
N2 - Importance: Breast cancer is one of the leading causes of negligence claims in radiology. The objective of this document is to describe the specific main causes of errors in breast imaging and provide European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI) recommendations to try to minimize these. Observations: Technical failures represent 17% of all mammographic diagnostic negligence claims. Mammography quality control protocol and dedicated training for technologists and radiologists are essential. Lack of consideration of the clinical context is a second critical issue, as a clinical abnormality is found in 80% of malpractice claims. EUSOBI emphasizes the importance of communication and clinical examination before the diagnostic investigation. Detection errors or misapplications of the lexicon or Breast Imaging Reporting Data System (BI-RADS) score account for 5% of malpractice claims and should be reduced by limiting radiologists’ distraction or fatigue, and being aware of satisfaction of search errors and the importance of a personal systematic review. Errors related to pathological concordance and MDT review can be limited by the use of markers after biopsy and the use of standardized reports, which can aid communication with other specialities. Finally, errors related to tumor or patient factors should be discussed, considering the use of contrast-enhanced mammography and magnetic resonance imaging. Conclusion: Several factors are responsible for misdiagnosis in breast cancer, including errors in the practice of the technician and/or radiologist (technical failures, lack of consideration of the clinical context, incorrect application of the BI-RADS score, false reassurances), lack of communication with other specialists or with the patient, and the type of tumor and breast parenchyma. Key Points: Question What factors most contribute to and what implications stem from misdiagnosis in breast imaging? Findings Ongoing training and education for radiologists and other healthcare providers, as well as interdisciplinary collaboration and communication is paramount. Clinical relevance Misdiagnosis in breast imaging can have significant implications for patients, healthcare providers, and the entire healthcare system.
AB - Importance: Breast cancer is one of the leading causes of negligence claims in radiology. The objective of this document is to describe the specific main causes of errors in breast imaging and provide European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI) recommendations to try to minimize these. Observations: Technical failures represent 17% of all mammographic diagnostic negligence claims. Mammography quality control protocol and dedicated training for technologists and radiologists are essential. Lack of consideration of the clinical context is a second critical issue, as a clinical abnormality is found in 80% of malpractice claims. EUSOBI emphasizes the importance of communication and clinical examination before the diagnostic investigation. Detection errors or misapplications of the lexicon or Breast Imaging Reporting Data System (BI-RADS) score account for 5% of malpractice claims and should be reduced by limiting radiologists’ distraction or fatigue, and being aware of satisfaction of search errors and the importance of a personal systematic review. Errors related to pathological concordance and MDT review can be limited by the use of markers after biopsy and the use of standardized reports, which can aid communication with other specialities. Finally, errors related to tumor or patient factors should be discussed, considering the use of contrast-enhanced mammography and magnetic resonance imaging. Conclusion: Several factors are responsible for misdiagnosis in breast cancer, including errors in the practice of the technician and/or radiologist (technical failures, lack of consideration of the clinical context, incorrect application of the BI-RADS score, false reassurances), lack of communication with other specialists or with the patient, and the type of tumor and breast parenchyma. Key Points: Question What factors most contribute to and what implications stem from misdiagnosis in breast imaging? Findings Ongoing training and education for radiologists and other healthcare providers, as well as interdisciplinary collaboration and communication is paramount. Clinical relevance Misdiagnosis in breast imaging can have significant implications for patients, healthcare providers, and the entire healthcare system.
KW - Breast cancer
KW - Mammography
KW - Misdiagnosis
KW - MRI
KW - Ultrasonography
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85209093960&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s00330-024-11133-4
DO - 10.1007/s00330-024-11133-4
M3 - Review article
AN - SCOPUS:85209093960
SN - 0938-7994
VL - 35
SP - 2397
EP - 2411
JO - European Radiology
JF - European Radiology
IS - 5
M1 - 32
ER -