OBJECTIVES: To compare tumour characteristics between cancers detected with screen-film mammography (SFM) and digital mammography (DM) and to evaluate changes in positive predictive values (PPVs) for further assessments, for invasive procedures and for distinct radiological patterns in recalled women. METHODS: 242,838 screening mammograms (171,191 SFM and 71,647 DM) from 103,613 women aged 45-69 years, performed in four population-based breast cancer screening programmes in Spain, were included. The tumour characteristics and PPVs of each group were compared. Radiological patterns (masses, calcifications, distortions and asymmetries) among recalled women were described and PPVs were evaluated. RESULTS: The percentages of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) were higher in DM than in SFM both in the first [18.5% vs. 15.8%(p = 0.580)] and in successive screenings [23.2% vs. 15.7%(p = 0.115)]. PPVs for masses, asymmetries and calcifications were higher in DM, being statistically significant in masses (5.3% vs. 3.9%; proportion ratio: 1.37 95%CI: 1.08-1.72). Among cancers detected by calcifications, the percentage of DCIS was higher in DM (60.3% vs. 46.4%, p = 0.060). CONCLUSIONS: PPVs were higher when DM was used, both for further assessments and for invasive procedures, with similar cancer detection rates and no statistically significant differences in tumour characteristics. The greatest improvements in PPVs were found for masses.
OBJECTIVES: To compare tumour characteristics between cancers detected with screen-film mammography (SFM) and digital mammography (DM) and to evaluate changes in positive predictive values (PPVs) for further assessments, for invasive procedures and for distinct radiological patterns in recalled women. METHODS: 242,838 screening mammograms (171,191 SFM and 71,647 DM) from 103,613 women aged 45-69 years, performed in four population-based breast cancer screening programmes in Spain, were included. The tumour characteristics and PPVs of each group were compared. Radiological patterns (masses, calcifications, distortions and asymmetries) among recalled women were described and PPVs were evaluated. RESULTS: The percentages of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) were higher in DM than in SFM both in the first [18.5% vs. 15.8%(p = 0.580)] and in successive screenings [23.2% vs. 15.7%(p = 0.115)]. PPVs for masses, asymmetries and calcifications were higher in DM, being statistically significant in masses (5.3% vs. 3.9%; proportion ratio: 1.37 95%CI: 1.08-1.72). Among cancers detected by calcifications, the percentage of DCIS was higher in DM (60.3% vs. 46.4%, p = 0.060). CONCLUSIONS: PPVs were higher when DM was used, both for further assessments and for invasive procedures, with similar cancer detection rates and no statistically significant differences in tumour characteristics. The greatest improvements in PPVs were found for masses.
Authors: Wei T Yang; Chao-Jen Lai; Gary J Whitman; William A Murphy; Mark J Dryden; Anne C Kushwaha; Aysegul A Sahin; Dennis Johnston; Peter J Dempsey; Chris C Shaw Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 3.959
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: Niamh M Hambly; Michelle M McNicholas; Niall Phelan; Gormlaith C Hargaden; Ann O'Doherty; Fidelma L Flanagan Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Aruna Venkatesan; Philip Chu; Karla Kerlikowske; Edward A Sickles; Rebecca Smith-Bindman Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-01-21 Impact factor: 11.105
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
Authors: Linda de Munck; Geertruida H de Bock; Renée Otter; Dick Reiding; Mireille Jm Broeders; Pax Hb Willemse; Sabine Siesling Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2016-08-04 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: J J Mordang; A Gubern-Mérida; A Bria; F Tortorella; R M Mann; M J M Broeders; G J den Heeten; N Karssemeijer Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2017-10-17 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Valérie D V Sankatsing; Jacques Fracheboud; Linda de Munck; Mireille J M Broeders; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; André L M Verbeek; Johannes D M Otten; Ruud M Pijnappel; Sabine Siesling; Harry J de Koning Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2018-03-05 Impact factor: 4.430