Stefanie Weigel1, W Heindel2, J Heidrich3, H-W Hense3,4, O Heidinger3. 1. Department of Clinical Radiology and Reference Center for Mammography, University of Muenster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, Building A1, 48149, Muenster, Germany. weigels@uni-muenster.de. 2. Department of Clinical Radiology and Reference Center for Mammography, University of Muenster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, Building A1, 48149, Muenster, Germany. 3. Cancer Registry of North Rhine-Westphalia, Muenster, Germany. 4. Institute of Epidemiology and Social Medicine, University of Muenster, Muenster, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To analyse the impact of breast density on the sensitivity of a population-based digital mammography screening programme (SP) as key evaluation parameter. METHODS: 25,576 examinations were prospectively stratified from ACR category 1 to 4 for increments of 25 % density during independent double reading. SP was calculated as number of screen-detected cancers divided by the sum of screen-detected plus interval cancers (24-months period) per ACR category, related to the first reading (a), second reading (b) and highest stratification if discrepant (c). Chi-square tests were used for comparison. RESULTS: Overall sensitivity of the programme was 79.9 %. SP in ACR 4 (a: 50 %, b: 50 %, c: 50 %) was significantly lower than in ACR 3 (a: 72.9 %, b: 79.4 %, c: 80.7 %, p < 0.001), ACR 2 (a: 83.9 %, b: 85.7 %, c: 83.2 %, p < 0.001) and ACR 1 (a: 100 %, b: 88.8 %, c: 100 %; p < 0.001). Frequencies of ACR 4 were a: 5.0 %, b: 4.3 %, c: 6.9 %. CONCLUSION: Digital mammography screening with independent double reading leads to a high overall SP. In the small group of women with breast density classified as ACR 4 SP is significantly reduced compared to all other ACR categories. KEY POINTS: • Overall sensitivity of a population-based digital mammography screening programme (SP) was 79.9 %. • In women with ACR 1, 2, or 3, SP ranged between 72.9 %-100 %. • ACR 4 was rare in participants (<7 %) and SP was only 50 %. • SP in ACR 4 differed significantly from ACR 3 (p < 0.001).
OBJECTIVES: To analyse the impact of breast density on the sensitivity of a population-based digital mammography screening programme (SP) as key evaluation parameter. METHODS: 25,576 examinations were prospectively stratified from ACR category 1 to 4 for increments of 25 % density during independent double reading. SP was calculated as number of screen-detected cancers divided by the sum of screen-detected plus interval cancers (24-months period) per ACR category, related to the first reading (a), second reading (b) and highest stratification if discrepant (c). Chi-square tests were used for comparison. RESULTS: Overall sensitivity of the programme was 79.9 %. SP in ACR 4 (a: 50 %, b: 50 %, c: 50 %) was significantly lower than in ACR 3 (a: 72.9 %, b: 79.4 %, c: 80.7 %, p < 0.001), ACR 2 (a: 83.9 %, b: 85.7 %, c: 83.2 %, p < 0.001) and ACR 1 (a: 100 %, b: 88.8 %, c: 100 %; p < 0.001). Frequencies of ACR 4 were a: 5.0 %, b: 4.3 %, c: 6.9 %. CONCLUSION: Digital mammography screening with independent double reading leads to a high overall SP. In the small group of women with breast density classified as ACR 4 SP is significantly reduced compared to all other ACR categories. KEY POINTS: • Overall sensitivity of a population-based digital mammography screening programme (SP) was 79.9 %. • In women with ACR 1, 2, or 3, SP ranged between 72.9 %-100 %. • ACR 4 was rare in participants (<7 %) and SP was only 50 %. • SP in ACR 4 differed significantly from ACR 3 (p < 0.001).
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer screening; Breast density; Digital mammography; Interval cancer; Population surveillance
Authors: Johanna Holm; Keith Humphreys; Jingmei Li; Alexander Ploner; Abbas Cheddad; Mikael Eriksson; Sven Törnberg; Per Hall; Kamila Czene Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-02-02 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Joy Melnikow; Joshua J Fenton; Evelyn P Whitlock; Diana L Miglioretti; Meghan S Weyrich; Jamie H Thompson; Kunal Shah Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2016-01-12 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Oliver Heidinger; Jan Heidrich; Wolf Ulrich Batzler; Volker Krieg; Stefanie Weigel; Walter Heindel; Hans-Werner Hense Journal: Breast Date: 2015-02-14 Impact factor: 4.380
Authors: Elizabeth S McDonald; Andrew Oustimov; Susan P Weinstein; Marie B Synnestvedt; Mitchell Schnall; Emily F Conant Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2016-06-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Karla Kerlikowske; Weiwei Zhu; Anna N A Tosteson; Brian L Sprague; Jeffrey A Tice; Constance D Lehman; Diana L Miglioretti Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2015-05-19 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Wendie A Berg; Jeffrey D Blume; Jean B Cormack; Ellen B Mendelson; Daniel Lehrer; Marcela Böhm-Vélez; Etta D Pisano; Roberta A Jong; W Phil Evans; Marilyn J Morton; Mary C Mahoney; Linda Hovanessian Larsen; Richard G Barr; Dione M Farria; Helga S Marques; Karan Boparai Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-05-14 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Katharina Holland; Jan van Zelst; Gerard J den Heeten; Mechli Imhof-Tas; Ritse M Mann; Carla H van Gils; Nico Karssemeijer Journal: Breast Date: 2016-07-13 Impact factor: 4.380
Authors: Rüdiger Schulz-Wendtland; Sebastian M Jud; Peter A Fasching; Arndt Hartmann; Marcus Radicke; Claudia Rauh; Michael Uder; Marius Wunderle; Paul Gass; Hanna Langemann; Matthias W Beckmann; Julius Emons Journal: Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd Date: 2017-04-27 Impact factor: 2.915
Authors: Lore Timmermans; Luc Bleyen; Klaus Bacher; Koen Van Herck; Kim Lemmens; Chantal Van Ongeval; Andre Van Steen; Patrick Martens; Isabel De Brabander; Mathieu Goossens; Hubert Thierens Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-03-13 Impact factor: 5.315
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
Authors: Sarina Wan; Benedicta D Arhatari; Yakov I Nesterets; Sheridan C Mayo; Darren Thompson; Jane Fox; Beena Kumar; Zdenka Prodanovic; Daniel Hausermann; Anton Maksimenko; Christopher Hall; Matthew Dimmock; Konstantin M Pavlov; Darren Lockie; Mary Rickard; Ziba Gadomkar; Alaleh Aminzadeh; Elham Vafa; Andrew Peele; Harry M Quiney; Sarah Lewis; Timur E Gureyev; Patrick C Brennan; Seyedamir Tavakoli Taba Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2021-07-12