Literature DB >> 26334680

Digital Compared with Screen-Film Mammography: Measures of Diagnostic Accuracy among Women Screened in the Ontario Breast Screening Program.

Maegan V Prummel1, Derek Muradali1, Rene Shumak1, Vicky Majpruz1, Patrick Brown1, Hedy Jiang1, Susan J Done1, Martin J Yaffe1, Anna M Chiarelli1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare measures of diagnostic accuracy between large concurrent cohorts of women screened with digital computed radiography (CR), direct radiography (DR), and screen-film mammography (SFM).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was approved by the University of Toronto Research Ethics Board; informed consent was not required. Three concurrent cohorts of women aged 50-74 years who were screened from 2008-2009 in the Ontario Breast Screening Program with SFM (487,334 screening examinations, 403,688 women), DR (254,758 screening examinations, 220,520 women), or CR (74,140 screening examinations, 64,210 women) were followed for 2 years or until breast cancer diagnosis. Breast cancers were classified as screening-detected or interval on the basis of the woman's final screening and assessment results. Interval cancer rate (per 10 000 negative screening examinations), sensitivity, and specificity were compared across the cohorts by using mixed-effects logistic regression analysis.
RESULTS: Interval cancer rates were higher, although not significantly so, for CR (15.2 per 10,000; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 12.8, 17.8) and were similar for DR (13.7 per 10,000; 95% CI: 12.4, 15.0) compared with SFM (13.0 per 10,000; 95% CI: 12.1, 13.9). For CR versus SFM, specificity was similar while sensitivity was significantly lower (odds ratio [OR] = 0.62; 95% CI: 0.47, 0.83; P = .001), particularly for invasive cancers detected at a rescreening examination, for women with breast density of less than 75%, for women with no family history, and for postmenopausal women. For DR versus SFM, sensitivity was similar while specificity was lower (OR = 0.92; 95% CI: 0.87, 0.98; P = .01), particularly for rescreening examinations, for women aged 60-74 years, for women with breast density of less than 75%, for women with a family history, and for women who were postmenopausal.
CONCLUSION: Given the 38% lower sensitivity of CR imaging systems compared with SFM, programs should assess the continued use of this technology for breast screening. © RSNA, 2015.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26334680     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2015150733

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


  12 in total

1.  Is clinical breast examination important for breast cancer detection?

Authors:  L Provencher; J C Hogue; C Desbiens; B Poirier; E Poirier; D Boudreau; M Joyal; C Diorio; N Duchesne; J Chiquette
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2016-08-12       Impact factor: 3.677

2.  Characterization of the imaging settings in screening mammography using a tracking and reporting system: A multi-center and multi-vendor analysis.

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

3.  Volumetric breast density affects performance of digital screening mammography.

Authors:  Johanna O P Wanders; Katharina Holland; Wouter B Veldhuis; Ritse M Mann; Ruud M Pijnappel; Petra H M Peeters; Carla H van Gils; Nico Karssemeijer
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2016-12-23       Impact factor: 4.872

4.  Influence of breast compression pressure on the performance of population-based mammography screening.

Authors:  Katharina Holland; Ioannis Sechopoulos; Ritse M Mann; Gerard J den Heeten; Carla H van Gils; Nico Karssemeijer
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2017-11-28       Impact factor: 6.466

Review 5.  Qualitative Versus Quantitative Mammographic Breast Density Assessment: Applications for the US and Abroad.

Authors:  Stamatia Destounis; Andrea Arieno; Renee Morgan; Christina Roberts; Ariane Chan
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2017-05-31

6.  Quantification of masking risk in screening mammography with volumetric breast density maps.

Authors:  Katharina Holland; Carla H van Gils; Ritse M Mann; Nico Karssemeijer
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2017-02-04       Impact factor: 4.872

7.  Mammography: an update of the EUSOBI recommendations on information for women.

Authors:  Francesco Sardanelli; Eva M Fallenberg; Paola Clauser; Rubina M Trimboli; Julia Camps-Herrero; Thomas H Helbich; Gabor Forrai
Journal:  Insights Imaging       Date:  2016-11-16

8.  Comparison of Digital and Screen-Film Mammography for Breast-Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Soo Yeon Song; Boyoung Park; Seri Hong; Min Jung Kim; Eun Hye Lee; Jae Kwan Jun
Journal:  J Breast Cancer       Date:  2019-05-13       Impact factor: 3.588

9.  Impact of Full-Field Digital Mammography Versus Film-Screen Mammography in Population Screening: A Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Rachel Farber; Nehmat Houssami; Sally Wortley; Gemma Jacklyn; Michael L Marinovich; Kevin McGeechan; Alexandra Barratt; Katy Bell
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2021-01-04       Impact factor: 13.506

10.  The combined effect of mammographic texture and density on breast cancer risk: a cohort study.

Authors:  Johanna O P Wanders; Carla H van Gils; Nico Karssemeijer; Katharina Holland; Michiel Kallenberg; Petra H M Peeters; Mads Nielsen; Martin Lillholm
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2018-05-02       Impact factor: 6.466

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.