OBJECTIVES: To compare the conspicuity of different histopathological types of breast cancer according to breast density and mammographic imaging in patients with screen-detected breast cancers undergoing both full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and screen-film mammography (SFM) in the United Kingdom National Health Service Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP). METHODS: 185 patients underwent routine screening with SFM followed by further imaging using FFDM with consequent diagnosis of breast cancer. All SFM and soft-copy FFDM images were evaluated by two readers in an independent, retrospective review. The visualisation and conspicuity of the mammographic abnormality were recorded and graded using a four-level scale. Conspicuity of breast cancer was qualitatively evaluated. Breast density and conspicuity were correlated with histopathological diagnosis and inter-observer correlation was calculated. RESULTS: Mixed Model ANOVA demonstrated significant differences between FFDM and SFM (p<0.001) and breast densities (p=0.009): conspicuity of the mammographic abnormality (p<0.001) and visualisation of the dominant mammographic feature (p<0.001) were significantly greater with FFDM than SFM. This held true for both readers and for all histopathological tumour types with no significant differences between each tumour type. CONCLUSION: FFDM is significantly superior to SFM for conspicuity of screen-detected breast cancers for all histopathological types and breast densities.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the conspicuity of different histopathological types of breast cancer according to breast density and mammographic imaging in patients with screen-detected breast cancers undergoing both full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and screen-film mammography (SFM) in the United Kingdom National Health Service Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP). METHODS: 185 patients underwent routine screening with SFM followed by further imaging using FFDM with consequent diagnosis of breast cancer. All SFM and soft-copy FFDM images were evaluated by two readers in an independent, retrospective review. The visualisation and conspicuity of the mammographic abnormality were recorded and graded using a four-level scale. Conspicuity of breast cancer was qualitatively evaluated. Breast density and conspicuity were correlated with histopathological diagnosis and inter-observer correlation was calculated. RESULTS: Mixed Model ANOVA demonstrated significant differences between FFDM and SFM (p<0.001) and breast densities (p=0.009): conspicuity of the mammographic abnormality (p<0.001) and visualisation of the dominant mammographic feature (p<0.001) were significantly greater with FFDM than SFM. This held true for both readers and for all histopathological tumour types with no significant differences between each tumour type. CONCLUSION: FFDM is significantly superior to SFM for conspicuity of screen-detected breast cancers for all histopathological types and breast densities.
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
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: 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: 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
Authors: Angela A Luck; Andrew J Evans; Jonathan J James; Emad A Rakha; E Claire Paish; Andrew R Green; Ian O Ellis Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2008-08 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: H C Burrell; D M Sibbering; A R Wilson; S E Pinder; A J Evans; L J Yeoman; C W Elston; I O Ellis; R W Blamey; J F Robertson Journal: Radiology Date: 1996-06 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Michael S Shawky; Cecilia W Huo; Kara Britt; Erik W Thompson; Michael A Henderson; Andrew Redfern Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2019-06-08 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Gábor Forrai; Eszter Kovács; Éva Ambrózay; Miklós Barta; Katalin Borbély; Zsolt Lengyel; Katalin Ormándi; Zoltán Péntek; Tasnádi Tünde; Éva Sebő Journal: Pathol Oncol Res Date: 2022-06-08 Impact factor: 2.874