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

被引:158
|
作者
Skaane, P [1 ]
Young, K [1 ]
Skjennald, A [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Oslo, Ullevaal Hosp, Dept Radiol, Breast Imaging Ctr, N-0407 Oslo, Norway
关键词
breast neoplasms; radiography; breast radiography; comparative studies; cancer screening; digital;
D O I
10.1148/radiol.2293021171
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 and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading in a population-based screening program. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Full-field digital and screen-film mammography were performed in 3,683 women aged 50-69 years. Two standard views of each breast were acquired with each modality. Images underwent independent double reading with use of a five-point rating scale for probability of cancer. Recall rates and positive predictive values were calculated. Cancer detection rates determined with both modalities were compared by using the McNemar test for paired proportions. Retrospective side-by-side analysis for conspicuity of cancers was performed by an external independent radiologist group with experience in both modalities. RESULTS: In 3,683 cases, 31 cancers were detected. Screen-film mammography depicted 28 (0.76%) malignancies, and full-field digital mammography depicted 23 (0.62%) malignancies. The difference between cancer detection rates was not significant (P = .23). The recall rate for full-field digital mammography (4.6%; 168 of 3,683 cases) was slightly higher than that for screen-film mammography (3.5%; 128 of 3,683 cases). The positive predictive value based on needle biopsy results was 46% for screen-film mammography and 39% for full-field digital mammography. Side-by-side image comparison for cancer conspicuity led to classification of 19 cancers as equal for probability of malignancy, six cancers as slightly better demonstrated at screen-film mammography, and six cancers as slightly better demonstrated at full-field digital mammography. CONCLUSION: There was no statistically significant difference in cancer detection rate between screen-film and full-field digital mammography. Cancer conspicuity was equal with both modalities.. Full-fielld digital mammography with soft-copy reading is comparable to screen-film mammography in population-based screening. RSNA, 2003.
引用
收藏
页码:877 / 884
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Population-based mammography screening: Comparison of screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography using soft-copy reading
    Skaane, A
    Young, K
    Egge, ES
    Scheel, B
    Sovik, E
    Skjennald, A
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 2001, 221 : 283 - 284
  • [2] Comparison of screen-film mammography (SFM) and full-field digital mammography (FFDM) with soft-copy reading in a population-based screening program: The Oslo II-study
    Skaane, P
    Young, K
    Skjennald, A
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 2002, 225 : 267 - 267
  • [3] Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: Randomized trial in a population-based screening program - The Oslo II study
    Skaane, P
    Skjennald, A
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 2004, 232 (01) : 197 - 204
  • [4] Screen-film mammography and soft-copy full-field digital mammography: Comparison in the patients with microcalcifications
    Kim, HS
    Han, BK
    Choo, KS
    Jeon, YH
    Kim, JH
    Choe, YH
    [J]. KOREAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2005, 6 (04) : 214 - 220
  • [5] Observer variability in screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading
    Per Skaane
    Felix Diekmann
    Corinne Balleyguier
    Susanne Diekmann
    Jean-Charles Piguet
    Kari Young
    Michael Abdelnoor
    Loren Niklason
    [J]. European Radiology, 2008, 18
  • [6] Observer variability in screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading
    Skaane, Per
    Diekmann, Felix
    Balleyguier, Corinne
    Diekmann, Susanne
    Piguet, Jean-Charles
    Young, Kari
    Abdelnoor, Michael
    Niklason, Loren
    [J]. EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2008, 18 (06) : 1134 - 1143
  • [7] Follow-up and final results of the Oslo I study comparing screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading
    Skaane, P
    Skjennald, A
    Young, K
    Egge, E
    Jebsen, I
    Sager, EM
    Scheel, B
    Sovik, E
    Ertzaas, AK
    Hofvind, S
    Abdelnoor, M
    [J]. ACTA RADIOLOGICA, 2005, 46 (07) : 679 - 689
  • [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
    Skaane, Per
    Hofvind, Solveig
    Skjennald, Arnulf
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 2007, 244 (03) : 708 - 717
  • [9] Comparison of interpretation times for screening exams between soft copy full-field digital mammography and hard copy screen-film mammography
    Solari, M
    Berns, EA
    Hendrick, RE
    Wolfman, JA
    Willis, W
    Segal, L
    DeLeon, P
    Benjamin, S
    Reddy, D
    Mendelson, E
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2004, 182 (04) : 11 - 11
  • [10] 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