Malpractice Claims in Mammography

  • Adriana Bonifacino
  • Corrado Caiazzo


Mammography is the standard of reference for the early detection of breast cancer.


Breast Cancer Mammographic Density Mammography Screening Screen Mammography Architectural Distortion 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Baker LH (1982) Breast Cancer Detection Demonstration Project: five-year summary report. Cancer J Clin 32:194–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Harvey JA, Fajardo LL, Innis CA (1993) Preview mammograms on patients with impalpable breast carcinomas: retrospective vs blind interpretation. Am J Roentgenol 161:1167–1172Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pinto A, Brunese L (2010) Spectrum of diagnostic errors in radiology. World J Radiol 2:377–383PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fileni P (2010) Radiologic malpractice litigation risk in Italy: an observational study over a 14-year period. AJR 194:1040–1046PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Berlin L (2001) Dot size, lead time, fallibility, and impact on survival: continuing controversies in mammography. Am J Roentgenol 176:1123–1130Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bird RE, Wallace TW, Yankaskas BC (1992) Analysis of cancers missed at screening mammography. Radiology 184:613–617PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Aneesa S (2003) Missed breast carcinoma: pitfalls and pearls. RadioGraphics 23:881–895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    McCormack VA, dos Santos Silva I (2006) Breast density and parenchymal patterns as markers of breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 15:1159–1169PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Skaane P (1999) Ultrasonography as adjunct to mammography in the evaluation of breast tumors. Acta Radiol Suppl 420:1–47Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Heron DE, Komarnicky LT, Hyslop T et al (2000) Bilateral breast carcinoma: risk factors and outcomes for patients with synchronous and metachronous disease. Cancer 88:2739–2750PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sickles EA (1986) Mammographic features of 300 consecutive nonpalpable breast cancers. Am J Roentgenol 146:661–663Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    van Dijck JA, Verbeek AL, Hendriks JH, Holland R (1993) The current detectability of breast cancer in a mammographic screening program: a review of the previous mammograms of interval and screen-detected cancers. Cancer 72:1933–1938PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ikeda DM, Birdwell RL, O’Shaughnessy KF et al (2003) Analysis of 172 subtle findings on prior normal mammograms in women with breast cancer detected at follow-up screening mammography. Radiology 226:494–503PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wolverton DE, Sickles EA (1996) Clinical outcome of doubtful mammographic findings. Am J Roentgenol 167:1041–1045Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ikeda DM, Andersson I, Wattsgard C et al (1992) Interval carcinomas in the Malmo Mammographic Screening Trial: radiologic appearance and prognostic considerations. Am J Roentgenol 159:287–294Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stavros AT, Thickman D, Rapp CL et al (1995) Solid breast nodules: use of sonography to distinguish between benign and malignant lesions. Radiology 196:123–134PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lev-Toaff AS, Feig SA, Saitas VL et al (1994) Stability of malignant breast microcalcifications. Radiology 198:153–156Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fileni A, Magnavita N, Pescarini L (2009) Analysis of malpractice claims in mammography: a complex issue. Radiol Med 114:636–644PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Farria DM, Schmidt ME, Monsees BS et al (2005) Professional and economic factors affecting access to mammography: a crisis today, or tomorrow? Cancer. 104:491–498PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Beam CA, Conant EF, Sickles EA (2003) Association of volume and volume-independent factors with accuracy in screening mammogram interpretation. J Natl Cancer Inst 95:282–290PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Barlow WE, Chi C, Carney PA et al (2004) Accuracy of screening mammography interpretation by characteristics of radiologists. J Natl Cancer Inst 96:1840–1850PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Litvin SG (2005) An overview of medical malpractice litigation and the perceived crisis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 433:8–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sara L. Jackson (2009) Variability of interpretive accuracy among diagnostic mammography facilities. J Natl Cancer Inst 101:814–827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Carney PA, Yi JP, Abraham LA et al (2007) Reactions to uncertainty and the accuracy of diagnostic mammography. J Gen Intern Med 22:234–241PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gruppo di studio GISMa-SIRM, Chersevani R, Ciatto S, Del Favero C et al (2010) “CADEAT”: considerations on the use of CAD (computer-aided diagnosis) in mammography. Radiol Med 115:563–70Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Leonard Berlin (2004) Mammography screening can survive malpractice if radiologists take center stage and assume the role of educator. Radiology 233:641–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kopans DB (2004) Mammography screening is saving thousands of lives, but will it survive medical malpractice? (editorial). Radiology 230:20–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adriana Bonifacino
    • 1
  • Corrado Caiazzo
    • 2
  1. 1.Breast Unit, “Sant’ Andrea” HospitalSapienza University of RomeRomeItaly
  2. 2.Breast Screening Unit “Corso Vittorio Emanuele”ASL Napoli 1 CentroNaplesItaly

Personalised recommendations