Rob van Bommel1, Adri C Voogd2,3, Marieke W Louwman3, Luc J Strobbe4, Dick Venderink5, Lucien E M Duijm6,7. 1. Department of Radiology, Catharina Hospital, PO Box 1530, 5602 ZA, Eindhoven, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Epidemiology, Maastricht University, PO Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Research, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization (IKNL), PO Box 19079, 3501 DB, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Surgery, Canisius-Wilhelmina Hospital, PO Box 9015, 6500 GS, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Radiology, Canisius-Wilhelmina Hospital, Weg door Jonkerbos 100, PO Box 9015, 6500 GS, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 6. Department of Radiology, Canisius-Wilhelmina Hospital, Weg door Jonkerbos 100, PO Box 9015, 6500 GS, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. lemduijm@hotmail.com. 7. Dutch Reference Centre for Screening, PO Box 6873, 6503GJ, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. lemduijm@hotmail.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to retrospectively determine screening outcome in women recalled twice for the same mammographic lesion before, during, and after transition from screen-film (SFM) to full-field digital screening mammography (FFDM). METHODS: We included women with a repeated recall for the same mammographic abnormality (37 at subsequent SFM-screening, obtained between January 2000-April 2010; respectively 54 and 65 women with a prior SFM-screen or FFDM-screen followed by subsequent FFDM-screening, obtained between May 2009-July 2013). RESULTS: At SFM-screening, repeated recalls for the same lesion comprised 1.2 % of recalls (37/3217), including 13 malignancies (positive predictive value (PPV), 35.1 %). During the SFM to FFDM transition (SFM-screen followed by FFDM-screen), FFDM recalls comprised more repeated recalls for the same lesion (2.2 %, P = 0.002), with a lower PPV (14.8 %, P = 0.02). This proportion increased to 2.8 % after transition to FFDM (i.e., two successive FFDM-screens), with 16 malignancies (PPV, 24.6 %). Invasive cancers at repeated recall were smaller than interval cancers (T1a-c, 79.4 versus 46.8 %, P = 0.001), with less lymph node involvement (20.6 versus 46.5 %, P = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: More women are repeatedly recalled for the same mammographic abnormality during and after the transition from SFM to FFDM-screening, with comparable cancer risks before and after the transition. These cancers show better prognostic characteristics than interval cancers. KEY POINTS: • FFDM-screening increases the number of repeated recalls for the same mammographic abnormality. • The PPV of these recalls is comparable before and after transition to FFDM-screening. • Cancers diagnosed after a repeated recall are smaller than interval cancers. • These cancers also show less lymph node involvement than interval cancers.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to retrospectively determine screening outcome in women recalled twice for the same mammographic lesion before, during, and after transition from screen-film (SFM) to full-field digital screening mammography (FFDM). METHODS: We included women with a repeated recall for the same mammographic abnormality (37 at subsequent SFM-screening, obtained between January 2000-April 2010; respectively 54 and 65 women with a prior SFM-screen or FFDM-screen followed by subsequent FFDM-screening, obtained between May 2009-July 2013). RESULTS: At SFM-screening, repeated recalls for the same lesion comprised 1.2 % of recalls (37/3217), including 13 malignancies (positive predictive value (PPV), 35.1 %). During the SFM to FFDM transition (SFM-screen followed by FFDM-screen), FFDMrecalls comprised more repeated recalls for the same lesion (2.2 %, P = 0.002), with a lower PPV (14.8 %, P = 0.02). This proportion increased to 2.8 % after transition to FFDM (i.e., two successive FFDM-screens), with 16 malignancies (PPV, 24.6 %). Invasive cancers at repeated recall were smaller than interval cancers (T1a-c, 79.4 versus 46.8 %, P = 0.001), with less lymph node involvement (20.6 versus 46.5 %, P = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: More women are repeatedly recalled for the same mammographic abnormality during and after the transition from SFM to FFDM-screening, with comparable cancer risks before and after the transition. These cancers show better prognostic characteristics than interval cancers. KEY POINTS: • FFDM-screening increases the number of repeated recalls for the same mammographic abnormality. • The PPV of these recalls is comparable before and after transition to FFDM-screening. • Cancers diagnosed after a repeated recall are smaller than interval cancers. • These cancers also show less lymph node involvement than interval cancers.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; Early detection of cancer; Mammography; Mass screening; Referral and consultation
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
Authors: Wikke Setz-Pels; Lucien E M Duijm; Marieke W J Louwman; Rudi M H Roumen; Frits H Jansen; Adri C Voogd Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-06-13 Impact factor: 5.315
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: J Nederend; L E M Duijm; M W J Louwman; J H Groenewoud; A B Donkers-van Rossum; A C Voogd Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2012-06-27 Impact factor: 32.976