BACKGROUND: Few studies have examined the comparative effectiveness of digital versus film-screen mammography in U.S. community practice. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the interpretive performance of digital and film-screen mammography differs. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Mammography facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. PARTICIPANTS: 329,261 women aged 40 to 79 years underwent 869 286 mammograms (231 034 digital; 638 252 film-screen). MEASUREMENTS: Invasive cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ diagnosed within 12 months of a digital or film-screen examination and calculation of mammography sensitivity, specificity, cancer detection rates, and tumor outcomes. RESULTS: Overall, cancer detection rates and tumor characteristics were similar for digital and film-screen mammography, but the sensitivity and specificity of each modality varied by age, tumor characteristics, breast density, and menopausal status. Compared with film-screen mammography, the sensitivity of digital mammography was significantly higher for women aged 60 to 69 years (89.9% vs. 83.0%; P = 0.014) and those with estrogen receptor-negative cancer (78.5% vs. 65.8%; P = 0.016); borderline significantly higher for women aged 40 to 49 years (82.4% vs. 75.6%; P = 0.071), those with extremely dense breasts (83.6% vs. 68.1%; P = 0.051), and pre- or perimenopausal women (87.1% vs. 81.7%; P = 0.057); and borderline significantly lower for women aged 50 to 59 years (80.5% vs. 85.1%; P = 0.097). The specificity of digital and film-screen mammography was similar by decade of age, except for women aged 40 to 49 years (88.0% vs. 89.7%; P < 0.001). LIMITATION: Statistical power for subgroup analyses was limited. CONCLUSION: Overall, cancer detection with digital or film-screen mammography is similar in U.S. women aged 50 to 79 years undergoing screening mammography. Women aged 40 to 49 years are more likely to have extremely dense breasts and estrogen receptor-negative tumors; if they are offered mammography screening, they may choose to undergo digital mammography to optimize cancer detection. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Cancer Institute.
BACKGROUND: Few studies have examined the comparative effectiveness of digital versus film-screen mammography in U.S. community practice. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the interpretive performance of digital and film-screen mammography differs. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Mammography facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. PARTICIPANTS: 329,261 women aged 40 to 79 years underwent 869 286 mammograms (231 034 digital; 638 252 film-screen). MEASUREMENTS: Invasive cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ diagnosed within 12 months of a digital or film-screen examination and calculation of mammography sensitivity, specificity, cancer detection rates, and tumor outcomes. RESULTS: Overall, cancer detection rates and tumor characteristics were similar for digital and film-screen mammography, but the sensitivity and specificity of each modality varied by age, tumor characteristics, breast density, and menopausal status. Compared with film-screen mammography, the sensitivity of digital mammography was significantly higher for women aged 60 to 69 years (89.9% vs. 83.0%; P = 0.014) and those with estrogen receptor-negative cancer (78.5% vs. 65.8%; P = 0.016); borderline significantly higher for women aged 40 to 49 years (82.4% vs. 75.6%; P = 0.071), those with extremely dense breasts (83.6% vs. 68.1%; P = 0.051), and pre- or perimenopausal women (87.1% vs. 81.7%; P = 0.057); and borderline significantly lower for women aged 50 to 59 years (80.5% vs. 85.1%; P = 0.097). The specificity of digital and film-screen mammography was similar by decade of age, except for women aged 40 to 49 years (88.0% vs. 89.7%; P < 0.001). LIMITATION: Statistical power for subgroup analyses was limited. CONCLUSION: Overall, cancer detection with digital or film-screen mammography is similar in U.S. women aged 50 to 79 years undergoing screening mammography. Women aged 40 to 49 years are more likely to have extremely dense breasts and estrogen receptor-negative tumors; if they are offered mammography screening, they may choose to undergo digital mammography to optimize cancer detection. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Cancer Institute.
Authors: Laura E Ichikawa; William E Barlow; Melissa L Anderson; Stephen H Taplin; Berta M Geller; R James Brenner Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-05-26 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Bonnie C Yankaskas; Stephen H Taplin; Laura Ichikawa; Berta M Geller; Robert D Rosenberg; Patricia A Carney; Karla Kerlikowske; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Gary R Cutter; William E Barlow Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: S Ciatto; N Houssami; A Apruzzese; E Bassetti; B Brancato; F Carozzi; S Catarzi; M P Lamberini; G Marcelli; R Pellizzoni; B Pesce; G Risso; F Russo; A Scorsolini Journal: Breast Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 4.380
Authors: Diana S M Buist; Melissa L Anderson; Sebastien J P A Haneuse; Edward A Sickles; Robert A Smith; Patricia A Carney; Stephen H Taplin; Robert D Rosenberg; Berta M Geller; Tracy L Onega; Barbara S Monsees; Lawrence W Bassett; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Joann G Elmore; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana L Miglioretti Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-02-22 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Philip Chu; Diana L Miglioretti; Chris Quale; Robert D Rosenberg; Gary Cutter; Berta Geller; Peter Bacchetti; Edward A Sickles; Karla Kerlikowske Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2005-03-02 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: K Kerlikowske; D Grady; J Barclay; S D Frankel; S H Ominsky; E A Sickles; V Ernster Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1998-12-02 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Natasha K Stout; Clyde B Schechter; Jeroen J van den Broek; Diana L Miglioretti; Martin Krapcho; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Diego Munoz; Sandra J Lee; Donald A Berry; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Oguzhan Alagoz; Karla Kerlikowske; Anna N A Tosteson; Aimee M Near; Amanda Hoeffken; Yaojen Chang; Eveline A Heijnsdijk; Gary Chisholm; Xuelin Huang; Hui Huang; Mehmet Ali Ergun; Ronald Gangnon; Brian L Sprague; Sylvia Plevritis; Eric Feuer; Harry J de Koning; Kathleen A Cronin Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2016-01-12 Impact factor: 25.391
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
Authors: Sylvia K Plevritis; Diego Munoz; Allison W Kurian; Natasha K Stout; Oguzhan Alagoz; Aimee M Near; Sandra J Lee; Jeroen J van den Broek; Xuelin Huang; Clyde B Schechter; Brian L Sprague; Juhee Song; Harry J de Koning; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Ronald Gangnon; Young Chandler; Yisheng Li; Cong Xu; Mehmet Ali Ergun; Hui Huang; Donald A Berry; Jeanne S Mandelblatt Journal: JAMA Date: 2018-01-09 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Anna M Chiarelli; Kristina M Blackmore; Lucia Mirea; Susan J Done; Vicky Majpruz; Ashini Weerasinghe; Linda Rabeneck; Derek Muradali Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2020-04-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Karla Kerlikowske; Charlotte C Gard; Jeffrey A Tice; Elad Ziv; Steven R Cummings; Diana L Miglioretti Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2016-12-31 Impact factor: 13.506
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
Authors: Brian L Sprague; Natasha K Stout; Clyde Schechter; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Mucahit Cevik; Oguzhan Alagoz; Christoph I Lee; Jeroen J van den Broek; Diana L Miglioretti; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Harry J de Koning; Karla Kerlikowske; Constance D Lehman; Anna N A Tosteson Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2015-02-03 Impact factor: 25.391
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