Louise M Henderson1, Diana L Miglioretti2, Karla Kerlikowske3, Karen J Wernli4, Brian L Sprague5, Constance D Lehman6. 1. 1 Department of Radiology, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 130 Mason Farm Rd, 3124 Bioinformatics Building, CB 7515, Chapel Hill, NC 27599. 2. 2 Division of Biostatistics, Department of Public Health Sciences, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA. 3. 3 Departments of Medicine and Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, CA. 4. 4 Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA. 5. 5 Department of Surgery, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT. 6. 6 Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether pathologic findings of screen-detected and interval cancers differ for digital versus film mammography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium data from 2003-2011 on 3,021,515 screening mammograms (40.3% digital, 59.7% film) of women 40-89 years old were reviewed. Cancers were considered screen detected if diagnosed within 12 months of an examination with positive findings and interval if diagnosed within 12 months of an examination with negative findings. Tumor characteristics for screen-detected and interval cancers were compared for digital versus film mammography by use of logistic regression models to estimate the odds ratio and 95% CI with adjustment for age, race and ethnicity, hormone therapy use, screening interval, examination year, and registry. Generalized estimating equations were used to account for correlation within facilities. RESULTS: Among 15,729 breast cancers, 85.3% were screen detected and 14.7% were interval. Digital and film mammography had similar rates of screen-detected (4.47 vs 4.42 per 1000 examinations) and interval (0.73 vs 0.79 per 1000 examinations) cancers for digital versus film. In adjusted analyses, interval cancers diagnosed after digital examinations with negative findings were less likely to be American Joint Committee on Cancer stage IIB or higher (odds ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.52-0.93), have positive nodal status (odds ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.64-0.95), or be estrogen receptor negative (odds ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.56-0.91) than were interval cancers diagnosed after a film examination with negative findings. CONCLUSION: Screen-detected cancers diagnosed after digital and film mammography had similar rates of unfavorable tumor characteristics. Interval-detected cancers diagnosed after a digital examination were less likely to have unfavorable tumor features than those diagnosed after film mammography, but the absolute differences were small.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether pathologic findings of screen-detected and interval cancers differ for digital versus film mammography. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium data from 2003-2011 on 3,021,515 screening mammograms (40.3% digital, 59.7% film) of women 40-89 years old were reviewed. Cancers were considered screen detected if diagnosed within 12 months of an examination with positive findings and interval if diagnosed within 12 months of an examination with negative findings. Tumor characteristics for screen-detected and interval cancers were compared for digital versus film mammography by use of logistic regression models to estimate the odds ratio and 95% CI with adjustment for age, race and ethnicity, hormone therapy use, screening interval, examination year, and registry. Generalized estimating equations were used to account for correlation within facilities. RESULTS: Among 15,729 breast cancers, 85.3% were screen detected and 14.7% were interval. Digital and film mammography had similar rates of screen-detected (4.47 vs 4.42 per 1000 examinations) and interval (0.73 vs 0.79 per 1000 examinations) cancers for digital versus film. In adjusted analyses, interval cancers diagnosed after digital examinations with negative findings were less likely to be American Joint Committee on Cancer stage IIB or higher (odds ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.52-0.93), have positive nodal status (odds ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.64-0.95), or be estrogen receptor negative (odds ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.56-0.91) than were interval cancers diagnosed after a film examination with negative findings. CONCLUSION: Screen-detected cancers diagnosed after digital and film mammography had similar rates of unfavorable tumor characteristics. Interval-detected cancers diagnosed after a digital examination were less likely to have unfavorable tumor features than those diagnosed after film mammography, but the absolute differences were small.
Entities:
Keywords:
digital mammography; film mammography; interval cancer; screen-detected cancer
Authors: Karla Kerlikowske; Rebecca A Hubbard; Diana L Miglioretti; Berta M Geller; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Constance D Lehman; Stephen H Taplin; Edward A Sickles Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-10-18 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Stephen H Taplin; Laura E Ichikawa; Karla Kerlikowske; Virginia L Ernster; Robert D Rosenberg; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Patricia A Carney; Berta M Geller; Nicole Urban; Mark B Dignan; William E Barlow; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Edward A Sickles Journal: Radiology Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: P L Porter; A Y El-Bastawissi; M T Mandelson; M G Lin; N Khalid; E A Watney; L Cousens; D White; S Taplin; E White Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1999-12-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Victoria A Kirsh; Anna M Chiarelli; Sarah A Edwards; Frances P O'Malley; Rene S Shumak; Martin J Yaffe; Norman F Boyd Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2011-05-03 Impact factor: 13.506
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: Lucien E M Duijm; Johanna H Groenewoud; Harry J de Koning; Jan Willem Coebergh; Mike van Beek; Marianne J H H Hooijen; Lonneke V van de Poll-Franse Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2008-12-04 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: C A Drukker; M K Schmidt; E J T Rutgers; F Cardoso; K Kerlikowske; L J Esserman; F E van Leeuwen; R M Pijnappel; L Slaets; J Bogaerts; L J Van't Veer Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2014-01-28 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Joann G Elmore; Andrea J Cook; Andy Bogart; Patricia A Carney; Berta M Geller; Stephen H Taplin; Diana S M Buist; Tracy Onega; Christoph I Lee; Diana L Miglioretti Journal: Clin Imaging Date: 2016-07-01 Impact factor: 1.605
Authors: Samantha Puvanesarajah; Sarah J Nyante; Cherie M Kuzmiak; Mengjie Chen; Chiu-Kit Tse; Xuezheng Sun; Emma H Allott; Erin L Kirk; Lisa A Carey; Charles M Perou; Andrew F Olshan; Louise M Henderson; Melissa A Troester Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2018-04-05
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: Heidi D Nelson; Ellen S O'Meara; Karla Kerlikowske; Steven Balch; Diana Miglioretti Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2016-01-12 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Anne Marie McCarthy; William E Barlow; Emily F Conant; Jennifer S Haas; Christopher I Li; Brian L Sprague; Katrina Armstrong Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2018-07-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Karla Kerlikowske; Shuai Chen; Marzieh K Golmakani; Brian L Sprague; Jeffrey A Tice; Anna N A Tosteson; Garth H Rauscher; Louise M Henderson; Diana S M Buist; Janie M Lee; Charlotte C Gard; Diana L Miglioretti Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2022-05-09 Impact factor: 11.816
Authors: Rob van Bommel; Adri C Voogd; Marieke W Louwman; Luc J Strobbe; Dick Venderink; Lucien E M Duijm Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-05-14 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Etta D Pisano; Constantine Gatsonis; Joseph Sparano; Melissa A Troester; Martin Yaffe; Elodia Cole; Mitchell D Schnall Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2021-07-01 Impact factor: 11.816