Literature DB >> 26518019

Digital versus screen-film mammography: impact of mammographic density and hormone therapy on breast cancer detection.

Anna M Chiarelli1,2, Maegan V Prummel3, Derek Muradali3, Rene S Shumak3, Vicky Majpruz3, Patrick Brown3,4, Hedy Jiang3, Susan J Done5, Martin J Yaffe6,7.   

Abstract

Most studies that have examined the effects of mammographic density and hormone therapy use on breast cancer detection have included screen-film mammography. This study further examines this association in post-menopausal women screened by digital mammography. Approved by the University of Toronto Research Ethics Board, this study identified 688,418 women of age 50-74 years screened with digital or screen-film mammography from 2008 to 2009 within the Ontario Breast Screening Program. Of 2993 eligible women with invasive breast cancer, 2450 were contacted and 1421 participated (847 screen-film mammography, 574 digital direct radiography). Mammographic density was measured by study radiologists using the standard BI-RADS classification system and by a computer-assisted method. Information on hormone therapy use was collected by a telephone-administered questionnaire. Logistic regression and two-tailed tests for significance evaluated associations between factors and detection method by mammography type. Women with >75 % radiologist-measured mammographic density compared to those with <25 % were more likely to be diagnosed with an interval than screen-detected cancer, with the difference being greater for those screened with screen-film (OR = 6.40, 95 % CI 2.30-17.85) than digital mammography (OR = 2.41, 95 % CI 0.67-8.58) and aged 50-64 years screened with screen-film mammography (OR = 10.86, 95 % CI 2.96-39.57). Recent former hormone therapy users were also at an increased risk of having an interval cancer with the association being significant for women screened with digital mammography (OR = 2.08, 95 % CI 1.17-3.71). Breast screening using digital mammography lowers the risk of having an interval cancer for post-menopausal women aged 50-64 with greater mammographic density.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Digital mammography; Hormone therapy use; Mammographic density; Post-menopausal; Screen-film mammography; Screening programme

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26518019     DOI: 10.1007/s10549-015-3622-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat        ISSN: 0167-6806            Impact factor:   4.872


  4 in total

Review 1.  A review of the influence of mammographic density on breast cancer clinical and pathological phenotype.

Authors:  Michael S Shawky; Cecilia W Huo; Kara Britt; Erik W Thompson; Michael A Henderson; Andrew Redfern
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2019-06-08       Impact factor: 4.872

2.  Annual surveillance mammography after early-stage breast cancer and breast cancer mortality.

Authors:  L F Paszat; R Sutradhar; S Gu; E Rakovitch
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2016-12-21       Impact factor: 3.677

Review 3.  Calcifications at Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Imaging Features and Biopsy Techniques.

Authors:  Joao V Horvat; Delia M Keating; Halio Rodrigues-Duarte; Elizabeth A Morris; Victoria L Mango
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  2019-01-25       Impact factor: 5.333

4.  Interdisciplinary Screening, Diagnosis, Therapy and Follow-up of Breast Cancer. Guideline of the DGGG and the DKG (S3-Level, AWMF Registry Number 032/045OL, December 2017) - Part 1 with Recommendations for the Screening, Diagnosis and Therapy of Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Achim Wöckel; Jasmin Festl; Tanja Stüber; Katharina Brust; Stephanie Stangl; Peter U Heuschmann; Ute-Susann Albert; Wilfried Budach; Markus Follmann; Wolfgang Janni; Ina Kopp; Rolf Kreienberg; Thorsten Kühn; Thomas Langer; Monika Nothacker; Anton Scharl; Ingrid Schreer; Hartmut Link; Jutta Engel; Tanja Fehm; Joachim Weis; Anja Welt; Anke Steckelberg; Petra Feyer; Klaus König; Andrea Hahne; Hans H Kreipe; Wolfram Trudo Knoefel; Michael Denkinger; Sara Brucker; Diana Lüftner; Christian Kubisch; Christina Gerlach; Annette Lebeau; Friederike Siedentopf; Cordula Petersen; Hans Helge Bartsch; Rüdiger Schulz-Wendtland; Markus Hahn; Volker Hanf; Markus Müller-Schimpfle; Ulla Henscher; Renza Roncarati; Alexander Katalinic; Christoph Heitmann; Christoph Honegger; Kerstin Paradies; Vesna Bjelic-Radisic; Friedrich Degenhardt; Frederik Wenz; Oliver Rick; Dieter Hölzel; Matthias Zaiss; Gudrun Kemper; Volker Budach; Carsten Denkert; Bernd Gerber; Hans Tesch; Susanne Hirsmüller; Hans-Peter Sinn; Jürgen Dunst; Karsten Münstedt; Ulrich Bick; Eva Fallenberg; Reina Tholen; Roswita Hung; Freerk Baumann; Matthias W Beckmann; Jens Blohmer; Peter A Fasching; Michael P Lux; Nadia Harbeck; Peyman Hadji; Hans Hauner; Sylvia Heywang-Köbrunner; Jens Huober; Jutta Hübner; Christian Jackisch; Sibylle Loibl; Hans-Jürgen Lück; Gunter von Minckwitz; Volker Möbus; Volkmar Müller; Ute Nöthlings; Marcus Schmidt; Rita Schmutzler; Andreas Schneeweiss; Florian Schütz; Elmar Stickeler; Christoph Thomssen; Michael Untch; Simone Wesselmann; Arno Bücker; Mathias Krockenberger
Journal:  Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd       Date:  2018-10-19       Impact factor: 2.915

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.