Literature DB >> 26537932

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

Cinzia Campari1,2, Paolo Giorgi Rossi2,3, Carlo Alberto Mori4, Sara Ravaioli4, Andrea Nitrosi5, Rita Vacondio4, Pamela Mancuso6,7, Antonella Cattani1,2, Pierpaolo Pattacini4.   

Abstract

In 2012, the Reggio Emilia Breast Cancer Screening Program introduced digital mammography in all its facilities at the same time. The aim of this work is to analyze the impact of digital mammography introduction on the recall rate, detection rate, and positive predictive value. The program actively invites women aged 45-74 years. We included women screened in 2011, all of whom underwent film-screen mammography, and all women screened in 2012, all of whom underwent digital mammography. Double reading was used for all mammograms, with arbitration in the event of disagreement. A total of 42,240 women underwent screen-film mammography and 45,196 underwent digital mammography. The recall rate increased from 3.3 to 4.4% in the first year of digital mammography (relative recall adjusted by age and round 1.46, 95% CI = 1.37-1.56); the positivity rate for each individual reading, before arbitration, rose from 3 to 5.7%. The digital mammography recall rate decreased during 2012: after 12 months, it was similar to the recall rate with screen-film mammography. The detection rate was similar: 5.9/1000 and 5.2/1000 with screen-film and digital mammography, respectively (adjusted relative detection rate 0.95, 95% CI = 0.79-1.13). The relative detection rate for ductal carcinoma in situ remained the same. The introduction of digital mammography to our organized screening program had a negative impact on specificity, thereby increasing the recall rate. The effect was limited to the first 12 months after introduction and was attenuated by the double reading with arbitration. We did not observe any relevant effects on the detection rate.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Breast cancer; Cancer screening; Digital mammography; Mammography; Specificity

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26537932      PMCID: PMC4788614          DOI: 10.1007/s10278-015-9843-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Digit Imaging        ISSN: 0897-1889            Impact factor:   4.056


  26 in total

1.  Follow-up and final results of the Oslo I Study comparing screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading.

Authors:  P Skaane; A Skjennald; K Young; E Egge; I Jebsen; E M Sager; B Scheel; E Søvik; A K Ertzaas; S Hofvind; M Abdelnoor
Journal:  Acta Radiol       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 1.990

2.  Implementation of digital mammography in a population-based breast cancer screening program: effect of screening round on recall rate and cancer detection.

Authors:  Maria Sala; Mercè Comas; Francesc Macià; Juan Martinez; Montserrat Casamitjana; Xavier Castells
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2009-05-06       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 3.  Studies comparing screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography in breast cancer screening: updated review.

Authors:  P Skaane
Journal:  Acta Radiol       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 1.990

4.  Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening.

Authors:  Etta D Pisano; Constantine Gatsonis; Edward Hendrick; Martin Yaffe; Janet K Baum; Suddhasatta Acharyya; Emily F Conant; Laurie L Fajardo; Lawrence Bassett; Carl D'Orsi; Roberta Jong; Murray Rebner
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2005-09-16       Impact factor: 91.245

5.  European breast cancer service screening outcomes: a first balance sheet of the benefits and harms.

Authors:  Eugenio Paci; Mireille Broeders; Solveig Hofvind; Donella Puliti; Stephen William Duffy
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 4.254

6.  Breast cancer screening results 5 years after introduction of digital mammography in a population-based screening program.

Authors:  Nico Karssemeijer; Adriana M Bluekens; David Beijerinck; Jan J Deurenberg; Matthijs Beekman; Roelant Visser; Ruben van Engen; Annemieke Bartels-Kortland; Mireille J Broeders
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2009-07-31       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Population-based mammography screening: comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading--Oslo I study.

Authors:  Per Skaane; Kari Young; Arnulf Skjennald
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2003-10-23       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Randomized trial of screen-film versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading in population-based screening program: follow-up and final results of Oslo II study.

Authors:  Per Skaane; Solveig Hofvind; Arnulf Skjennald
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: randomized trial in a population-based screening program--the Oslo II Study.

Authors:  Per Skaane; Arnulf Skjennald
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2004-05-20       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Clinical comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection of breast cancer.

Authors:  John M Lewin; Carl J D'Orsi; R Edward Hendrick; Lawrence J Moss; Pamela K Isaacs; Andrew Karellas; Gary R Cutter
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 3.959

View more
  4 in total

1.  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

2.  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

Review 3.  [Digital Mammography as a Screening Tool in Korea].

Authors:  Soo Yeon Song; Seri Hong; Jae Kwan Jun
Journal:  Taehan Yongsang Uihakhoe Chi       Date:  2021-01-31

4.  A blood screening test for Alzheimer's disease.

Authors:  Sid E O'Bryant; Melissa Edwards; Leigh Johnson; James Hall; Alcibiades E Villarreal; Gabrielle B Britton; Mary Quiceno; C Munro Cullum; Neill R Graff-Radford
Journal:  Alzheimers Dement (Amst)       Date:  2016-06-25
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.