Literature DB >> 23033499

Comparison of digital screening mammography and screen-film mammography in the early detection of clinically relevant cancers: a multicenter study.

Adriana M J Bluekens1, Roland Holland, Nico Karssemeijer, Mireille J M Broeders, Gerard J den Heeten.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare screen-film mammography with digital mammography in a breast cancer screening program, with a focus on the clinical relevance of detected cancers.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was approved by the regional medical ethics review board. Informed consent was not required. Before the nationwide transition to digital mammography in the Dutch biennial screening program, the performance of digital mammography was studied in three screening regions. For initial screening examinations, mediolateral oblique and craniocaudal views were obtained of each breast. In subsequent examinations, the mediolateral oblique view was standard. A craniocaudal view was added if indicated. Screening outcomes obtained with screen-film mammography and digital mammography, including radiologic and pathologic characteristics, were compared for initial and subsequent examinations.
RESULTS: A total of 1,198,493 screening examinations were performed between 2003 and 2007. Recall was indicated in 18 896 cases (screen-film mammography: 2.6% at initial examinations, 1.3% at subsequent examinations; digital mammography: 4.4% at initial examinations, 2.1% at subsequent examinations; P < .001 for both). Breast cancer was diagnosed in 6410 women (detection rate per 1000 women with screen-film mammography: 5.6 at initial examinations, 5.2 at subsequent examinations; detection rate per 1000 women with digital mammography: 6.8 at initial examinations, 6.1 at subsequent examinations; P = .02 and P < .001, respectively). Digital mammography depicted significantly more ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) lesions, irrespective of screening round. Invasive carcinoma was detected significantly more often in subsequent examinations, particularly when associated with microcalcifications (P = .047). The distribution of the histopathologic differentiation grades for DCIS and invasive carcinoma were similar with both modalities. However, with digital mammography more high-grade DCIS lesions were detected at subsequent examinations (P = .013).
CONCLUSION: In a population-based breast screening program, the performance of digital mammography in the detection of DCIS and invasive carcinoma was substantially better than that of screen-film mammography. There is no sign of an increase in detection of low-grade DCIS lesions-indicative of possible overdiagnosis-with digital breast cancer screening. Rather, digital mammography appears to add to the detection of high-grade DCIS. © RSNA, 2012.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23033499     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.12111461

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  40 in total

1.  Impact of the Introduction of Digital Mammography in an Organized Screening Program on the Recall and Detection Rate.

Authors:  Cinzia Campari; Paolo Giorgi Rossi; Carlo Alberto Mori; Sara Ravaioli; Andrea Nitrosi; Rita Vacondio; Pamela Mancuso; Antonella Cattani; Pierpaolo Pattacini
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 4.056

2.  3-T breast magnetic resonance imaging in patients with suspicious microcalcifications on mammography.

Authors:  B L Stehouwer; L G Merckel; H M Verkooijen; N H G M Peters; R M Mann; K M Duvivier; W P Th M Mali; P H M Peeters; W B Veldhuis; M A A J van den Bosch
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Value of audits in breast cancer screening quality assurance programmes.

Authors:  Tanya D Geertse; Roland Holland; Janine M H Timmers; Ellen Paap; Ruud M Pijnappel; Mireille J M Broeders; Gerard J den Heeten
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-04-23       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Impact of the digitalisation of mammography on performance parameters and breast dose in the Flemish Breast Cancer Screening Programme.

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

5.  US and MRI in the evaluation of mammographic BI-RADS 4 and 5 microcalcifications.

Authors:  Ana Hrkac Pustahija; Gordana Ivanac; Boris Brkljacic
Journal:  Diagn Interv Radiol       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 2.630

6.  Characteristics of screen-detected cancers following concordant or discordant recalls at blinded double reading in biennial digital screening mammography.

Authors:  Angela M P Coolen; Joost R C Lameijer; Adri C Voogd; Marieke W J Louwman; Luc J Strobbe; Vivianne C G Tjan-Heijnen; Lucien E M Duijm
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-06-25       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 7.  Microcalcification on mammography: approaches to interpretation and biopsy.

Authors:  Louise Wilkinson; Val Thomas; Nisha Sharma
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2016-10-17       Impact factor: 3.039

8.  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

9.  Technical and clinical breast cancer screening performance indicators for computed radiography versus direct digital radiography.

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

10.  Screen-detected versus interval cancers: Effect of imaging modality and breast density in the Flemish Breast Cancer Screening Programme.

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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.