Literature DB >> 29106821

Detection Rates of Ductal Carcinoma in Situ with Biennial Digital Mammography Screening: Radiologic Findings Support Pathologic Model of Tumor Progression.

Stefanie Weigel1, Laura Khil1, Hans-Werner Hense1, Thomas Decker1, Jürgen Wellmann1, Jan Heidrich1, Alexander Sommer1, Oliver Heidinger1, Walter Heindel1.   

Abstract

Purpose To compare detection rates of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), classified according to nuclear grade, between the prevalence round (baseline screening) and two subsequent screening rounds of a population-based digital mammography screening program, to assess differences over time. Materials and Methods The cancer registry provided data for 1970 graded pure DCIS cases from 16 screening regions of the prevalence round (baseline screening, from 2005 to 2008), first subsequent round, and second subsequent round; the interval between all screening rounds was 22-30 months. Age-adjusted logistic regression analysis was performed to compare the grade-specific detection rates between the prevalence round (reference) and subsequent screening rounds. Results Over all screening rounds, cancer detection rates were lowest for low-grade DCIS (range, 0.11 [58 of 508 817 patients] to 0.25 [178 of 713 867 patients] per 1000 women screened) and highest for high-grade DCIS (range, 0.53[271 of 508 817 patients] to 0.59 [237 of 398 944 patients] per 1000 women screened). Detection rates for low-grade DCIS were significantly lower in the first (odds ratio [OR] = 0.45, P < .001) and second (OR = 0.57, P < .001) subsequent screening rounds compared with that in the prevalence round; the relative reduction of detection rates of intermediate-grade DCIS was less pronounced (OR = 0.79, P = .006 and OR = 0.76, P = .003, respectively). Conversely, the detection rate of high-grade DCIS remained at the high level found in the prevalence screening (OR = 0.89, P = .143 and OR = 0.97, P = .700, respectively). Conclusion The findings demonstrate persistently high detection rates of high-grade DCIS in two consecutive subsequent screening rounds compared with the prevalence round; conversely, rates of low-grade DCIS and, less markedly, intermediate-grade DCIS decreased in subsequent rounds. Grade-related changes of DCIS detection are suggestive of distinct dynamics of lesion progression. © RSNA, 2017 An earlier incorrect version of this article appeared online. This article was corrected on November 10, 2017.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29106821     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2017170673

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


  6 in total

1.  Association between radiologists' and facilities' characteristics and mammography screening detection of ductal carcinoma in situ.

Authors:  Isabelle Théberge; Nathalie Vandal; Linda Perron; Marie-Hélène Guertin
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2021-01-04       Impact factor: 4.872

2.  Chronological Trends of Breast Ductal Carcinoma In Situ: Clinical, Radiologic, and Pathologic Perspectives.

Authors:  Si Eun Lee; Ha Yan Kim; Jung Hyun Yoon; Eun-Kyung Kim; Jee Ye Kim; Min Jung Kim; Ga Ram Kim; Youngjean Vivian Park; Hee Jung Moon
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2021-07-01       Impact factor: 5.344

3.  Trends in surgical treatment for breast cancer in Germany after the implementation of the mammography screening program.

Authors:  Pietro Trocchi; Oliver Kuss; Vanessa Kääb-Sanyal; Oliver Heidinger; Andreas Stang
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2019-10-24       Impact factor: 8.082

4.  The cost-effectiveness of digital breast tomosynthesis in a population breast cancer screening program.

Authors:  Jing Wang; Xuan-Anh Phi; Marcel J W Greuter; Alicja M Daszczuk; Talitha L Feenstra; Ruud M Pijnappel; Karin M Vermeulen; Nico Buls; Nehmat Houssami; Wenli Lu; Geertruida H de Bock
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2020-05-07       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  Efficacy and Safety of Glandular Flap Techniques in Surgical Treatment of Large Ductal Carcinoma in situ.

Authors:  Lutfi Dogan; Mehmet Ali Gulcelik
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2020-05-27       Impact factor: 2.268

6.  Using deep learning to assist readers during the arbitration process: a lesion-based retrospective evaluation of breast cancer screening performance.

Authors:  Laura Kerschke; Stefanie Weigel; Alejandro Rodriguez-Ruiz; Nico Karssemeijer; Walter Heindel
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2021-08-12       Impact factor: 5.315

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.