OBJECTIVE: To evaluate if the screening performance parameters of digital mammography (DM) in a decentralized screening organization were comparable with film-screen mammography (FSM). METHODS: A nationwide screening program was launched in 2001, and since 2005 screening with DM has been allowed. Firstly, the parameters of the three regional screening units (RSUs) that first switched to DM (11,355 women) were compared with the FSM period of the same three RSUs (23,325 women). Secondly, they were compared with the results of the whole central breast unit (CBU). RESULTS: The recall rate (RR) of the DM group in the initial round was 2.64% [2.40% for FSM (p = 0.43)] and in the subsequent round 1.20% [1.58% for FSM (p = 0.03)]. The cancer detection rate (CDR) was 0.59% for DM and 0.64% for FSM (p = 0.56). The percentage of ductal carcinoma in situ was 0.07% for DM and 0.16% for FSM (p = 0.02). The positive predictive value was high in the subsequent rounds (DM 48.00%, FSM 45.93%) and lower in the initial round (DM 24.05%, FSM 24.86%). Compared with the results of the whole CBU, DM showed no significant difference. CONCLUSION: DM can be introduced in a decentralized screening organization with a high CDR without increasing the RR.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate if the screening performance parameters of digital mammography (DM) in a decentralized screening organization were comparable with film-screen mammography (FSM). METHODS: A nationwide screening program was launched in 2001, and since 2005 screening with DM has been allowed. Firstly, the parameters of the three regional screening units (RSUs) that first switched to DM (11,355 women) were compared with the FSM period of the same three RSUs (23,325 women). Secondly, they were compared with the results of the whole central breast unit (CBU). RESULTS: The recall rate (RR) of the DM group in the initial round was 2.64% [2.40% for FSM (p = 0.43)] and in the subsequent round 1.20% [1.58% for FSM (p = 0.03)]. The cancer detection rate (CDR) was 0.59% for DM and 0.64% for FSM (p = 0.56). The percentage of ductal carcinoma in situ was 0.07% for DM and 0.16% for FSM (p = 0.02). The positive predictive value was high in the subsequent rounds (DM 48.00%, FSM 45.93%) and lower in the initial round (DM 24.05%, FSM 24.86%). Compared with the results of the whole CBU, DM showed no significant difference. CONCLUSION:DM can be introduced in a decentralized screening organization with a high CDR without increasing the RR.
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
Authors: Johannes D M Otten; Nico Karssemeijer; Jan H C L Hendriks; Johanna H Groenewoud; Jacques Fracheboud; André L M Verbeek; Harry J de Koning; Roland Holland Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2005-05-18 Impact factor: 13.506
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
Authors: E Kellen; G Vande Putte; A Van Steen; E Cloes; D Lousbergh; F Buntinx; E Van Limbergen Journal: Acta Clin Belg Date: 2008 May-Jun Impact factor: 1.264
Authors: Lore Timmermans; An De Hauwere; Klaus Bacher; Hilde Bosmans; Kim Lemmens; Luc Bleyen; Erik Van Limbergen; Patrick Martens; Andre Van Steen; Griet Mortier; Koen Van Herck; Hubert Thierens Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-05-10 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Alistair Mackenzie; Lucy M Warren; Matthew G Wallis; Julie Cooke; Rosalind M Given-Wilson; David R Dance; Dev P Chakraborty; Mark D Halling-Brown; Padraig T Looney; Kenneth C Young Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-06-25 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Maxine S Jochelson; D David Dershaw; Janice S Sung; Alexandra S Heerdt; Cynthia Thornton; Chaya S Moskowitz; Jessica Ferrara; Elizabeth A Morris Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-12-06 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Hilde Bosmans; An De Hauwere; Kim Lemmens; Federica Zanca; Hubert Thierens; Chantal Van Ongeval; Koen Van Herck; Andre Van Steen; Patrick Martens; Luc Bleyen; Gretel Vande Putte; Eliane Kellen; Griet Mortier; Erik Van Limbergen Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-05-21 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Lore Timmermans; Luc Bleyen; Klaus Bacher; Koen Van Herck; Kim Lemmens; Chantal Van Ongeval; Andre Van Steen; Patrick Martens; Isabel De Brabander; Mathieu Goossens; Hubert Thierens Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-03-13 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Rachel Farber; Nehmat Houssami; Sally Wortley; Gemma Jacklyn; Michael L Marinovich; Kevin McGeechan; Alexandra Barratt; Katy Bell Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2021-01-04 Impact factor: 13.506