PURPOSE: To evaluate the performance of digital direct radiography (DR) and computed radiography (CR) compared with that of screen-film mammography (SFM) in large concurrent cohorts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was approved by the University of Toronto Research Ethics Board and did not require informed consent. Concurrent cohorts of women aged 50-74 years screened with DR (n = 220 520), CR (n = 64 210), or SFM (n = 403 688) between 2008 and 2009 were identified and followed for 12 months. Performance was compared between cohorts, with SFM as the referent cohort. Associations were examined by using mixed-effect logistic regression. RESULTS: The cancer detection rate was similar for DR (4.9 per 1000; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.7, 5.2) and SFM (4.8 per 1000; 95% CI: 4.7, 5.0); however, the rate was significantly lower for CR (3.4 per 1000; 95% CI: 3.0, 3.9) (odds ratio, 0.79; 95% CI: 0.68, 0.93). Recall rates were higher for DR (7.7%; 95% CI: 7.6%, 7.8%) and lower for CR (6.6%; 95% CI: 6.5%, 6.7%) than for SFM (7.4%; 95% CI: 7.3%, 7.5%). Positive predictive value was lower for CR (5.2%; 95% CI: 4.7%, 5.8%) than for SFM (6.6%; 95% CI: 6.4%, 6.8%); however, the adjusted odds were not significant. CONCLUSION: Although DR is equivalent to SFM for breast screening among women aged 50-74 years, the cancer detection rate was lower for CR. Screening programs should monitor the performance of CR separately and may consider informing women of the potentially lower cancer detection rates.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the performance of digital direct radiography (DR) and computed radiography (CR) compared with that of screen-film mammography (SFM) in large concurrent cohorts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was approved by the University of Toronto Research Ethics Board and did not require informed consent. Concurrent cohorts of women aged 50-74 years screened with DR (n = 220 520), CR (n = 64 210), or SFM (n = 403 688) between 2008 and 2009 were identified and followed for 12 months. Performance was compared between cohorts, with SFM as the referent cohort. Associations were examined by using mixed-effect logistic regression. RESULTS: The cancer detection rate was similar for DR (4.9 per 1000; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.7, 5.2) and SFM (4.8 per 1000; 95% CI: 4.7, 5.0); however, the rate was significantly lower for CR (3.4 per 1000; 95% CI: 3.0, 3.9) (odds ratio, 0.79; 95% CI: 0.68, 0.93). Recall rates were higher for DR (7.7%; 95% CI: 7.6%, 7.8%) and lower for CR (6.6%; 95% CI: 6.5%, 6.7%) than for SFM (7.4%; 95% CI: 7.3%, 7.5%). Positive predictive value was lower for CR (5.2%; 95% CI: 4.7%, 5.8%) than for SFM (6.6%; 95% CI: 6.4%, 6.8%); however, the adjusted odds were not significant. CONCLUSION: Although DR is equivalent to SFM for breast screening among women aged 50-74 years, the cancer detection rate was lower for CR. Screening programs should monitor the performance of CR separately and may consider informing women of the potentially lower cancer detection rates.
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: 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: Kristina M Blackmore; Ashini Weerasinghe; Claire M B Holloway; Vicky Majpruz; Lucia Mirea; Frances P O'Malley; Cathy Paroschy Harris; Ashley Hendry; Amanda Hey; Anat Kornecki; George Lougheed; Barbara-Anne Maier; Patricia Marchand; David McCready; Carol Rand; Simon Raphael; Roanne Segal-Nadler; Neelu Sehgal; Derek Muradali; Anna M Chiarelli Journal: Can J Public Health Date: 2019-04-29
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: Alistair Mackenzie; Lucy M Warren; Matthew G Wallis; Rosalind M Given-Wilson; Julie Cooke; David R Dance; Dev P Chakraborty; Mark D Halling-Brown; Padraig T Looney; Kenneth C Young Journal: Phys Med Date: 2016-04-06 Impact factor: 2.685
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: Bruno Barufaldi; Samantha P Zuckerman; Regina B Medeiros; Andrew D Maidment; Homero Schiabel Journal: Phys Med Date: 2020-03-03 Impact factor: 2.685