Literature DB >> 19770323

Comparison of digital mammography and screen-film mammography in breast cancer screening: a review in the Irish breast screening program.

Niamh M Hambly1, Michelle M McNicholas, Niall Phelan, Gormlaith C Hargaden, Ann O'Doherty, Fidelma L Flanagan.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Clinical trials to date into the use of full-field digital mammography (FFDM) for breast cancer screening have shown variable results. The aim of this study was to review the use of FFDM in a population-based breast cancer screening program and to compare the results with screen-film mammography.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 188,823 screening examinations of women between 50 and 64 years old; 35,204 (18.6%) mammograms were obtained using FFDM. All films were double read using a 5-point rating scale to indicate the probability of cancer. Patients with positive scores were recalled for further workup. The recall rate, cancer detection rate, and positive predictive value (PPV) of FFDM were compared with screen-film mammography.
RESULTS: The cancer detection rate was significantly higher for FFDM than screen-film mammography (6.3 vs 5.2 per 1,000, respectively; p = 0.01). The cancer detection rate for FFDM was higher than screen-film mammography for initial screening and subsequent screening, for invasive cancer and ductal carcinoma in situ, and across all age groups. The cancer detection rate for cancers presenting as microcalcifications was significantly higher for FFDM than for screen-film mammography (1.9 vs 1.3 per 1,000, p = 0.01). The recall rate was significantly higher for FFDM than screen-film mammography (4.0% vs 3.1%, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the PPVs of recall to assessment for FFDM and screen-film mammography (15.7% and 16.7%, p = 0.383).
CONCLUSION: FFDM resulted in significantly higher cancer detection and recall rates than screen-film mammography in women 50-64 years old. The PPVs of FFDM and screen-film mammography were comparable. The results of this study suggest that FFDM can be safely implemented in breast cancer screening programs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19770323     DOI: 10.2214/AJR.08.2157

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  28 in total

1.  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

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.  Quantification of the UK 5-point breast imaging classification and mapping to BI-RADS to facilitate comparison with international literature.

Authors:  K Taylor; P Britton; S O'Keeffe; M G Wallis
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 3.039

4.  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

5.  The impact of simulated motion blur on lesion detection performance in full-field digital mammography.

Authors:  Ahmed K Abdullah; Judith Kelly; John D Thompson; Claire E Mercer; Rob Aspin; Peter Hogg
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2017-06-16       Impact factor: 3.039

6.  Scatter radiation intensities around full-field digital mammography units.

Authors:  M A Judge; E Keavey; N Phelan
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 3.039

7.  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

8.  Breast Cancer Characteristics Associated With Digital Versus Film-Screen Mammography for Screen-Detected and Interval Cancers.

Authors:  Louise M Henderson; Diana L Miglioretti; Karla Kerlikowske; Karen J Wernli; Brian L Sprague; Constance D Lehman
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 3.959

9.  Cancelled stereotactic biopsy of calcifications not seen using the stereotactic technique: do we still need to biopsy?

Authors:  Sandra B Brennan; Donna D'Alessio; Laura Liberman; Dilip Giri; Edi Brogi; Elizabeth A Morris
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2013-11-12       Impact factor: 5.315

10.  Reported mammographic density: film-screen versus digital acquisition.

Authors:  Jennifer A Harvey; Charlotte C Gard; Diana L Miglioretti; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana S M Buist; Berta A Geller; Tracy L Onega
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2012-12-18       Impact factor: 11.105

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.