Top

Published in:

01-10-2010 | Breast

Does digital mammography in a decentralized breast cancer screening program lead to screening performance parameters comparable with film-screen mammography?

Authors: Chantal Van Ongeval, Andre Van Steen, Gretel Vande Putte, Federica Zanca, Hilde Bosmans, Guy Marchal, Erik Van Limbergen

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 10/2010

Abstract

Objective:

To evaluate if the screening performance parameters of digital mammography (DM) in a decentralized screening organization were comparable with film-screen mammography (FSM).

Methods:

A nationwide screening program was launched in 2001, and since 2005 screening with DM has been allowed. Firstly, the parameters of the three regional screening units (RSUs) that first switched to DM (11,355 women) were compared with the FSM period of the same three RSUs (23,325 women). Secondly, they were compared with the results of the whole central breast unit (CBU).

Results:

The recall rate (RR) of the DM group in the initial round was 2.64% [2.40% for FSM (p = 0.43)] and in the subsequent round 1.20% [1.58% for FSM (p = 0.03)]. The cancer detection rate (CDR) was 0.59% for DM and 0.64% for FSM (p = 0.56). The percentage of ductal carcinoma in situ was 0.07% for DM and 0.16% for FSM (p = 0.02). The positive predictive value was high in the subsequent rounds (DM 48.00%, FSM 45.93%) and lower in the initial round (DM 24.05%, FSM 24.86%). Compared with the results of the whole CBU, DM showed no significant difference.

Conclusion:

DM can be introduced in a decentralized screening organization with a high CDR without increasing the RR.

Lewin JM, Hendrick RE, D’Orsi CJ et al (2001) Comparison of full-field digital mammography with screen-film mammography for cancer detection results of 4,945 paired examinations. Radiology 218:873–880PubMed

Skaane P, Young K, Skjennald A (2003) Population-based mammography screening: comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading—Oslo I study. Radiology 229:877–884CrossRefPubMed

Skaane P, Skjennald A (2004) Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: randomized trial in a population-based screening program—the Oslo II study. Radiology 232:197–204CrossRefPubMed

Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E et al (2005) Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 353:1773–1783CrossRefPubMed

Vinnicombe S, Pereira P, McCormack F et al (2009) Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparison within the UK Breast Screening Program and Systematic review of published data. Radiology 251:347–358CrossRefPubMed

Vigeland E, Klaasen H, Klingen TA, Hofvind S, Skaane P (2008) Full-field digital mammography compared to screen film mammography in the prevalent round of a population-based screening programme: the Vestfold County Study. Eur Radiol 18:183–191CrossRefPubMed

Karssemeijer N, Bluekens AM, Beijerinck D, Deurenberg JJ, Beekman M, Visser R, van Engen R, Bartels-Kortland A, Broeders MJ (2009) Breast cancer screening results 5 years after introduction of digital mammography in a population-based screening program. Radiology 253:353–358CrossRefPubMed

Del Turco MR, Mantellini P, Ciatto S et al (2007) Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparative accuracy in concurrent screening cohorts. AJR Am J Roentgenol 189:860–866CrossRefPubMed

van Engen R, Young KC, Bosmans H, Thijssen M (2005) The European protocol for the quality control of the physical and technical aspects of mammography screening. Part B: digital mammography. In the Fourth Edition of the European Guidelines for Breast Cancer Screening. Available at www.euref.org

10.

Vlaams Agentschap Zorg en Gezondheid, Afdeling Preventie, Belgium. Draaiboek Vlaams bevolkingsonderzoek naar borstkanker, www.zorg-en-gezondheid.be

11.

Thierens H, Bosmans H, Buls N, De Hauwere A, Bacher K, Jacobs J, Clerinx P (2009) Typetesting of physical characteristics of digital mammography systems for screening within the Flemish breast cancer screening programme. Eur J Radiol 70:539–548CrossRefPubMed

12.

Bosmans H, Carton AK, Rogge F, Zanca F, Jacobs J, Van Ongeval C, Nijs K, Van Steen A, Marchal G (2005) Image quality measurements and metrics in full field digital mammography: an overview. Radiat Prot Dosim 117:120–130CrossRef

13.

Van Ongeval C, Van Steen A, Bosmans H (2008) Teaching syllabus for radiological aspects of breast cancer screening with digital mammography. Radiat Prot Dosim 129:191–194CrossRef

14.

Young KC, Alsager A, Oduko JM et al (2008) Evaluation of software in reading images of the CDMAM test object to assess digital mammography systems. Proc SPIE 6913:69131C–11

15.

Jacobs J, Rogge F, Kotre J, Marchal G, Bosmans H (2007) Preliminary validation of a new variable pattern for daily quality assurance of medical image display devices. Med Phys 34:2744–2758CrossRefPubMed

16.

Kellen E, Vande Putte G, Van Steen A, Cloes E, Lousbergh D, Buntinx F, Van Limbergen E (2008) Interval cancers in the beginning years of the breast cancer screening programme in the Belgian province of Limburg. Acta Clin Belg 63:179–184PubMed

17.

Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C, Törnberg S, Holland R, von Karsa L (2008) European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth edition—summary document. Ann Oncol 19:614–622CrossRefPubMed

18.

Tabar L, Vitak B, TonyChen HH, Yen MF, Duffy SW, Smith RA (2001) Beyond randomized controlled trials: organized mammographic screening substantially reduces breast carcinoma mortality. Cancer 91:1724–1731CrossRefPubMed

19.

Skaane P (2009) Digital mammography in European population-based screening programs. In:Bick U, Diekmann F (eds) Digital mammography. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 155–176

20.

Verbeek ALM, Broeders MJM (2003) Evaluation of The Netherlands breast cancer screening programme. Ann Oncol 14:1203–1205CrossRefPubMed

21.

Otten JD, Karssemeijer N, Hendriks JH, Groenewoud JH, Fracheboud J, Verbeek AL, de Koning HJ, Holland R (2005) Effect of recall rate of earlier screen detection of breast cancers based on the Dutch performance indicators. J Natl Cancer Inst 97(10):748–754CrossRefPubMed

Title: Does digital mammography in a decentralized breast cancer screening program lead to screening performance parameters comparable with film-screen mammography?
Authors: Chantal Van Ongeval
Andre Van Steen
Gretel Vande Putte
Federica Zanca
Hilde Bosmans
Guy Marchal
Erik Van Limbergen
Publication date: 01-10-2010
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: European Radiology / Issue 10/2010
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-010-1807-6

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Does digital mammography in a decentralized breast cancer screening program lead to screening performance parameters comparable with film-screen mammography?

Abstract

Objective:

Methods:

Results:

Conclusion:

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objective:

Methods:

Results:

Conclusion:

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 10/2010

Uterine artery embolisation versus hysterectomy for leiomyomas: primary and 2-year follow-up results of a randomised prospective clinical trial

Outcomes of follow-up CT for small (5–10-mm) arterially enhancing nodules in the liver and risk factors for developing hepatocellular carcinoma in a surveillance population

Contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the staging of acute pancreatitis

Identification of the pyramidal tract by neuronavigation based on intraoperative magnetic resonance tractography: correlation with subcortical stimulation

Are flow-mediated vasodilatation and intima-media thickness of the brachial artery associated with restenosis after endovascular treatment of peripheral arterial occlusive disease?

Dynamic MR angiography (MRA) of spinal vascular diseases at 3T