Comparison of Digital Screening Mammography and Screen-Film Mammography in the Early Detection of Clinically Relevant Cancers: A Multicenter Study

被引:109
|
作者
Bluekens, Adriana M. J. [1 ,2 ]
Holland, Roland [1 ]
Karssemeijer, Nico [3 ]
Broeders, Mireille J. M. [1 ,4 ]
den Heeten, Gerard J. [1 ,5 ]
机构
[1] Natl Expert & Training Ctr Breast Canc Screening, NL-6503 GJ Nijmegen, Netherlands
[2] St Elizabeth Hosp, Dept Radiol, Tilburg, Netherlands
[3] Radboud Univ Nijmegen, Med Ctr, Dept Radiol, NL-6525 ED Nijmegen, Netherlands
[4] Radboud Univ Nijmegen, Med Ctr, Dept Epidemiol Biostat & HTA, NL-6525 ED Nijmegen, Netherlands
[5] Univ Amsterdam, Acad Med Ctr, Dept Radiol, NL-1105 AZ Amsterdam, Netherlands
关键词
CARCINOMA IN-SITU; BREAST-CANCER; RANDOMIZED-TRIAL; OVERDIAGNOSIS; PROGRAM; WOMEN; HETEROGENEITY; OVERTREATMENT; PERFORMANCE; IMPACT;
D O I
10.1148/radiol.12111461
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Purpose: To compare screen-film mammography with digital mammography in a breast cancer screening program, with a focus on the clinical relevance of detected cancers. Materials and Methods: The study was approved by the regional medical ethics review board. Informed consent was not required. Before the nationwide transition to digital mammography in the Dutch biennial screening program, the performance of digital mammography was studied in three screening regions. For initial screening examinations, mediolateral oblique and craniocaudal views were obtained of each breast. In subsequent examinations, the mediolateral oblique view was standard. A craniocaudal view was added if indicated. Screening outcomes obtained with screen-film mammography and digital mammography, including radiologic and pathologic characteristics, were compared for initial and subsequent examinations. Results: A total of 1 198 493 screening examinations were performed between 2003 and 2007. Recall was indicated in 18 896 cases (screen-film mammography: 2.6% at initial examinations, 1.3% at subsequent examinations; digital mammography: 4.4% at initial examinations, 2.1% at subsequent examinations; P < .001 for both). Breast cancer was diagnosed in 6410 women (detection rate per 1000 women with screen-film mammography: 5.6 at initial examinations, 5.2 at subsequent examinations; detection rate per 1000 women with digital mammography: 6.8 at initial examinations, 6.1 at subsequent examinations; P = .02 and P < .001, respectively). Digital mammography depicted significantly more ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) lesions, irrespective of screening round. Invasive carcinoma was detected significantly more often in subsequent examinations, particularly when associated with microcalcifications (P = .047). The distribution of the histopathologic differentiation grades for DCIS and invasive carcinoma were similar with both modalities. However, with digital mammography more high-grade DCIS lesions were detected at subsequent examinations (P = .013). Conclusion: In a population-based breast screening program, the performance of digital mammography in the detection of DCIS and invasive carcinoma was substantially better than that of screen-film mammography. There is no sign of an increase in detection of low-grade DCIS lesions-indicative of possible overdiagnosis-with digital breast cancer screening. Rather, digital mammography appears to add to the detection of high-grade DCIS. (C) RSNA, 2012
引用
收藏
页码:707 / 714
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Full-field digital mammography in comparison to screen-film mammography - A phantom study
    Obenauer, S
    Schorn, C
    Funke, M
    Fischer, U
    Grabbe, E
    Hermann, KP
    [J]. IWDM 2000: 5TH INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP ON DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY, 2001, : 499 - 503
  • [2] Screening Mammography Efficacy: A Comparison Between Screen-Film, Computed Radiography and Digital Mammography in Taiwan
    Elbakkoush, Abdallah Ahmed
    Atique, Suleman
    Chiang, I-Jen
    [J]. MEDINFO 2015: EHEALTH-ENABLED HEALTH, 2015, 216 : 914 - 914
  • [3] Comparison of Digital Mammography and Screen-Film Mammography in Breast Cancer Screening: A Review in the Irish Breast Screening Program
    Hambly, Niamh M.
    McNicholas, Michelle M.
    Phelan, Niall
    Hargaden, Gormlaith C.
    O'Doherty, Ann
    Flanagan, Fidelma L.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2009, 193 (04) : 1010 - 1018
  • [4] A comparison of clinical findings in digital and screen-film mammography
    Piccoli, CW
    Maidment, AD
    Cavanaugh, BC
    Parker, L
    Albert, M
    Cupp, SL
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 2002, 225 : 417 - 417
  • [5] Digital mammography vs. screen-film mammography:: a phantom study
    Heid, P
    Pagliuchi, C
    Séradour, B
    Motte, N
    Langlois, L
    Kurkdjian, S
    Piana, L
    [J]. DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY, PROCEEDINGS, 2003, : 20 - 26
  • [6] A COMPARISON OF MAMMOGRAPHY SCREEN-FILM COMBINATIONS
    SCHUELER, BA
    GRAY, JE
    GISVOLD, JJ
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 1992, 184 (03) : 629 - 634
  • [7] Clinical performance comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen-film mammography
    Berns, EA
    Hendrick, RE
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 2001, 221 : 283 - 283
  • [8] Quality Imaging -: Comparison of CR Mammography with Screen-Film Mammography
    Gaona, E.
    Nieto, J. Azorin
    Gongora, J. A. Iran Diaz
    Arreola, M.
    Castellanoso, G. Casian
    Castaneda, G. M. Perdigon
    Enriquez, J. G. Franco
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2006, 854 : 227 - +
  • [9] Magnification mammography: a comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for the detection of simulated small masses and microcalcifications
    K.-P. Hermann
    S. Obenauer
    M. Funke
    E. Grabbe
    [J]. European Radiology, 2002, 12 : 2188 - 2191
  • [10] Magnification mammography: a comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for the detection of simulated small masses and microcalcifications
    Hermann, KP
    Obenauer, S
    Funke, M
    Grabbe, EH
    [J]. EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2002, 12 (09) : 2188 - 2191