Literature DB >> 17680246

Full-field digital mammography compared to screen film mammography in the prevalent round of a population-based screening programme: the Vestfold County Study.

Einar Vigeland1, Herman Klaasen, Tor Audun Klingen, Solveig Hofvind, Per Skaane.   

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to compare the performance of full-field digital mammography (FFDM) with soft-copy reading to screen film mammography (SFM) used during the first prevalent 2-year round of population-based screening. A total of 18,239 women aged 50-69 years were screened with FFDM as part of the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Programme (NBCSP). Process indicators were compared to data from 324,763 women screened with SFM using the common national database of the NBCSP. The cancer detection rates were 0.77% (140/18,239) for FFDM and 0.65% (2,105/324,763) for SFM (p = 0.058). For ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) alone, the results were: FFDM 0.21% (38/18,239) compared to SFM 0.11% (343/324,763) (p < 0.001). Recall rates due to positive mammography were for FFDM 4.09% (746/18,239), while for SFM 4.16% (13,520/324,764) (p = 0.645), due to technically insufficient imaging: FFDM 0.22% (40/18,239) versus SFM 0.61% (1,993/324,763) (p < 0.001). The positive predictive value (PPV) in the FFDM group was 16.6% (140/843), while 13.5% (2,105/15,537) for SFM (p = 0.014). No statistically significant differences were recorded concerning histological morphology, tumour size, or lymph node involvement. In conclusion FFDM had a significantly higher detection rate for DCIS than SFM. For invasive cancers no difference was seen. FFDM also had a significantly higher PPV and a significantly lower technical recall rate.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17680246     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-007-0730-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  26 in total

Review 1.  Ductal carcinoma in situ. Implications for screening mammography.

Authors:  S A Feig
Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 2.303

2.  Performance comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen-film mammography in clinical practice.

Authors:  Eric A Berns; R Edward Hendrick; Gary R Cutter
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Follow-up and final results of the Oslo I Study comparing screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading.

Authors:  P Skaane; A Skjennald; K Young; E Egge; I Jebsen; E M Sager; B Scheel; E Søvik; A K Ertzaas; S Hofvind; M Abdelnoor
Journal:  Acta Radiol       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 1.990

4.  Comparing the performance of mammography screening in the USA and the UK.

Authors:  Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Diana L Miglioretti; Julietta Patnick; Karla Kerlikowske
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 2.136

5.  Comparison of full-field digital mammography with screen-film mammography for cancer detection: results of 4,945 paired examinations.

Authors:  J M Lewin; R E Hendrick; C J D'Orsi; P K Isaacs; L J Moss; A Karellas; G A Sisney; C C Kuni; G R Cutter
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Variability in the interpretation of screening mammograms by US radiologists. Findings from a national sample.

Authors:  C A Beam; P M Layde; D C Sullivan
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  1996-01-22

7.  Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening.

Authors:  Etta D Pisano; Constantine Gatsonis; Edward Hendrick; Martin Yaffe; Janet K Baum; Suddhasatta Acharyya; Emily F Conant; Laurie L Fajardo; Lawrence Bassett; Carl D'Orsi; Roberta Jong; Murray Rebner
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2005-09-16       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: randomized trial in a population-based screening program--the Oslo II Study.

Authors:  Per Skaane; Arnulf Skjennald
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2004-05-20       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  Clinical comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection of breast cancer.

Authors:  John M Lewin; Carl J D'Orsi; R Edward Hendrick; Lawrence J Moss; Pamela K Isaacs; Andrew Karellas; Gary R Cutter
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 3.959

10.  Dose comparison between screen/film and full-field digital mammography.

Authors:  Gisella Gennaro; Cosimo di Maggio
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2006-05-30       Impact factor: 7.034

View more
  26 in total

1.  Does digital mammography in a decentralized breast cancer screening program lead to screening performance parameters comparable with film-screen mammography?

Authors:  Chantal Van Ongeval; Andre Van Steen; Gretel Vande Putte; Federica Zanca; Hilde Bosmans; Guy Marchal; Erik Van Limbergen
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2010-05-09       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Diagnostic quality of 50 and 100 μm computed radiography compared with screen-film mammography in operative breast specimens.

Authors:  C M Pagliari; T Hoang; M Reddy; L S Wilkinson; J D Poloniecki; R M Given-Wilson
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2011-11-17       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  Impact of the Introduction of Digital Mammography in an Organized Screening Program on the Recall and Detection Rate.

Authors:  Cinzia Campari; Paolo Giorgi Rossi; Carlo Alberto Mori; Sara Ravaioli; Andrea Nitrosi; Rita Vacondio; Pamela Mancuso; Antonella Cattani; Pierpaolo Pattacini
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 4.056

4.  Mammographic performance in a population-based screening program: before, during, and after the transition from screen-film to full-field digital mammography.

Authors:  Solveig Hofvind; Per Skaane; Joann G Elmore; Sofie Sebuødegård; Solveig Roth Hoff; Christoph I Lee
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2014-04-01       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Observer variability in screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading.

Authors:  Per Skaane; Felix Diekmann; Corinne Balleyguier; Susanne Diekmann; Jean-Charles Piguet; Kari Young; Michael Abdelnoor; Loren Niklason
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2008-02-27       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 6.  [Workflow in digital screening mammography].

Authors:  U Bick; F Diekmann; E M Fallenberg
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 0.635

7.  Effect of dose reduction on the ability of digital mammography to detect simulated microcalcifications.

Authors:  Mari Yakabe; Shuji Sakai; Hidetake Yabuuchi; Yoshio Matsuo; Takeshi Kamitani; Taro Setoguchi; Mayumi Cho; Masafumi Masuda; Masayuki Sasaki
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2009-05-05       Impact factor: 4.056

8.  Should previous mammograms be digitised in the transition to digital mammography?

Authors:  S Taylor-Phillips; M G Wallis; A G Gale
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2009-03-18       Impact factor: 5.315

9.  Comparison of synthetic and digital mammography with digital breast tomosynthesis or alone for the detection and classification of microcalcifications.

Authors:  Ji Soo Choi; Boo-Kyung Han; Eun Young Ko; Ga Ram Kim; Eun Sook Ko; Ko Woon Park
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-06-21       Impact factor: 5.315

10.  Differences in radiological patterns, tumour characteristics and diagnostic precision between digital mammography and screen-film mammography in four breast cancer screening programmes in Spain.

Authors:  Laia Domingo; Anabel Romero; Francesc Belvis; Mar Sánchez; Joana Ferrer; Dolores Salas; Josefa Ibáñez; Alfonso Vega; Francesc Ferrer; M Soledad Laso; Francesc Macià; Xavier Castells; Maria Sala
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2011-05-11       Impact factor: 5.315

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.