Literature DB >> 19703851

Breast cancer screening results 5 years after introduction of digital mammography in a population-based screening program.

Nico Karssemeijer1, Adriana M Bluekens, David Beijerinck, Jan J Deurenberg, Matthijs Beekman, Roelant Visser, Ruben van Engen, Annemieke Bartels-Kortland, Mireille J Broeders.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare full-field digital mammography (FFDM) using computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) with screen-film mammography (SFM) in a population-based breast cancer screening program for initial and subsequent screening examinations.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was approved by the regional medical ethics review board. Informed consent was not required. In a breast cancer screening facility, two of seven conventional mammography units were replaced with FFDM units. Digital mammograms were interpreted by using soft-copy reading with CAD. The same team of radiologists was involved in the double reading of FFDM and SFM images, with differences of opinion resolved in consensus. After 5 years, screening outcomes obtained with both modalities were compared for initial and subsequent screening examination findings.
RESULTS: A total of 367,600 screening examinations were performed, of which 56,518 were digital. Breast cancer was detected in 1927 women (317 with FFDM). At initial screenings, the cancer detection rate was .77% with FFDM and .62% with SFM. At subsequent screenings, detection rates were .55% and .49%, respectively. Differences were not statistically significant. Recalls based on microcalcifications alone doubled with FFDM. A significant increase in the detection of ductal carcinoma in situ was found with FFDM (P < .01). The fraction of invasive cancers with microcalcifications as the only sign of malignancy increased significantly, from 8.1% to 15.8% (P < .001). Recall rates were significantly higher with FFDM in the initial round (4.4% vs 2.3%, P < .001) and in the subsequent round (1.7% vs 1.2%, P < .001).
CONCLUSION: With the FFDM-CAD combination, detection performance is at least as good as that with SFM. The detection of ductal carcinoma in situ and microcalcification clusters improved with FFDM using CAD, while the recall rate increased. (c) RSNA, 2009.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19703851     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2532090225

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  46 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.  Comparison of the clinical performance of three digital mammography systems in a breast cancer screening programme.

Authors:  E Keavey; N Phelan; A M O'Connell; F Flanagan; A O'Doherty; A Larke; A M Connors
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2011-11-17       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  Standalone computer-aided detection compared to radiologists' performance for the detection of mammographic masses.

Authors:  Rianne Hupse; Maurice Samulski; Marc Lobbes; Ard den Heeten; Mechli W Imhof-Tas; David Beijerinck; Ruud Pijnappel; Carla Boetes; Nico Karssemeijer
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2012-07-08       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  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

5.  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

6.  Comparative effectiveness of digital versus film-screen mammography in community practice in the United States: a cohort study.

Authors:  Karla Kerlikowske; Rebecca A Hubbard; Diana L Miglioretti; Berta M Geller; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Constance D Lehman; Stephen H Taplin; Edward A Sickles
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2011-10-18       Impact factor: 25.391

7.  Value of audits in breast cancer screening quality assurance programmes.

Authors:  Tanya D Geertse; Roland Holland; Janine M H Timmers; Ellen Paap; Ruud M Pijnappel; Mireille J M Broeders; Gerard J den Heeten
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-04-23       Impact factor: 5.315

8.  Clinical dose performance of full field digital mammography in a breast screening programme.

Authors:  J B McCullagh; P Baldelli; N Phelan
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2011-05-17       Impact factor: 3.039

9.  Variation in detection of ductal carcinoma in situ during screening mammography: a survey within the International Cancer Screening Network.

Authors:  Elsebeth Lynge; Antonio Ponti; Ted James; Ondřej Májek; My von Euler-Chelpin; Ahti Anttila; Patricia Fitzpatrick; Alfonso Frigerio; Masaaki Kawai; Astrid Scharpantgen; Mireille Broeders; Solveig Hofvind; Carmen Vidal; Maria Ederra; Dolores Salas; Jean-Luc Bulliard; Mariano Tomatis; Karla Kerlikowske; Stephen Taplin
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2013-09-13       Impact factor: 9.162

10.  Short-term outcomes of screening mammography using computer-aided detection: a population-based study of medicare enrollees.

Authors:  Joshua J Fenton; Guibo Xing; Joann G Elmore; Heejung Bang; Steven L Chen; Karen K Lindfors; Laura-Mae Baldwin
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2013-04-16       Impact factor: 25.391

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.