Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Radiology
Published in: European Radiology 1/2008

01-01-2008 | Breast

Full-field digital mammography compared to screen film mammography in the prevalent round of a population-based screening programme: the Vestfold County Study

Authors: Einar Vigeland, Herman Klaasen, Tor Audun Klingen, Solveig Hofvind, Per Skaane

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 1/2008

Login to get access

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to compare the performance of full-field digital mammography (FFDM) with soft-copy reading to screen film mammography (SFM) used during the first prevalent 2-year round of population-based screening. A total of 18,239 women aged 50–69 years were screened with FFDM as part of the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Programme (NBCSP). Process indicators were compared to data from 324,763 women screened with SFM using the common national database of the NBCSP. The cancer detection rates were 0.77% (140/18,239) for FFDM and 0.65% (2,105/324,763) for SFM (p = 0.058). For ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) alone, the results were: FFDM 0.21% (38/18,239) compared to SFM 0.11% (343/324,763) (p < 0.001). Recall rates due to positive mammography were for FFDM 4.09% (746/18,239), while for SFM 4.16% (13,520/324,764) (p = 0.645), due to technically insufficient imaging: FFDM 0.22% (40/18,239) versus SFM 0.61% (1,993/324,763) (p < 0.001). The positive predictive value (PPV) in the FFDM group was 16.6% (140/843), while 13.5% (2,105/15,537) for SFM (p = 0.014). No statistically significant differences were recorded concerning histological morphology, tumour size, or lymph node involvement. In conclusion FFDM had a significantly higher detection rate for DCIS than SFM. For invasive cancers no difference was seen. FFDM also had a significantly higher PPV and a significantly lower technical recall rate.
Literature
1.
Obenauer S, Luftner-Nagel S, von Heyden D, Munzel U, Baum F, Grabbe E (2002) Screen film vs full-field digital mammography: image quality, detectability and characterization of lesions. Eur Radiol 12:1697–1702. DOI 10.​1007/​s00330-001-1269-y PubMedCrossRef
2.
Berns EA, Henrick RE, Cutter GR (2002) Performance comparison of full-field digital to screen film mammography in clinical practice. Med Phys 29:830–834PubMedCrossRef
3.
4.
Pisano ED, Cole EB, Major S et al (2000) Radiologists’ preferences for digital mammographic display. Radiology 216:820–830PubMed
5.
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 eaxinations. Radiology 218:873–880PubMed
6.
Lewin JM, D’Orsi CJ, Henrick RE et al (2002) Clinical comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen film mammography for detection of breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 179:671–677PubMed
7.
8.
Skaane P, Skjennald A (2004) Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: randomized trial in a population-based screening programme-the Oslo II study. Radiology 232:197–204. DOI 10.​1148/​radiol.​2321031624 PubMedCrossRef
9.
10.
The Ministry of Health and Social Affairs. Regulations on the collection and processing of personal health data in the Cancer Registry of Norway (Cancer Registry Regulations) (2001) The Ministry of Health and Social Affairs, Oslo, Norway
11.
European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis (2006) 4th Edition. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities
12.
Hofvind S, Wang H, Thoresen S (2004) Do the results of the process indicators in the Norwegian Breast cancer Screening Program predict future mortality reduction from breast cancer? Acta Oncol 43:467–473PubMedCrossRef
13.
14.
15.
Skaane P, Skjennald A, Young K et al (2005) Follow-up and final results of the Oslo I study comparing screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography with soft copy reading. Acta Radiol 46:679–689PubMedCrossRef
16.
17.
18.
Yankaskas BC, Cleveland RJ, Schell MJ, Kozar R (2001) Association of recall rates with sensitivity and positive predictive values of screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 177:543–549PubMed
19.
20.
Ernster VL, Ballard-Barbash R, Zheng Y, Weaver DL, Cutter G, Yankaskas BC (2002) Detection of ductal carcinoma in women undergoing screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst 94:1546–1554PubMed
21.
Van Ongeval C, Bosmans H, Van Steen A et al (2006) Evaluation of the diagnostic value of a computed radiography system by comparison of digital hard copy images with screen-film mammography: results of a prospective clinical trial. Eur Radiol 16:1360–1366. DOI 10.​1007/​s00330-005-0134-9 PubMedCrossRef
22.
Fischer U, Baum F, Obenauer S et al (2002) Comparative study in patients with microcalcifications: full-field digital mammography vs screen-film mammography. Eur Radiol 12:2679–2683. DOI 10.​1007/​s00330-002-1354-x PubMed
23.
American College of Radiology (2003) Illustrated breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS™), 4th edn. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology
24.
Feig SA (2000) Ductal carcinoma in situ implications for screening mammography. Radiol Clin N Am 38:653–668PubMedCrossRef
25.
Kessar P, Perry N, Vinnicombe SJ, Hussain HK, Carpenter R, Wells CA (2002) How significant is detection of ductal carcinoma in situ in a breast screening programme? Clin Radiol 57:807–814PubMed
26.
27.
28.
Elmore JG, Wells CK, Lee CH, Howard DH, Fienstein AR (1994) Variability in radiologists’ interpretations of mammograms. N Engl J Med 331:1493–1499PubMedCrossRef
29.
Beam CA, Layde PM, Sullivan DC (1996) Variability in the interpretation of screening mammograms by US radiologists. Arch Intern Med 156:209–213PubMedCrossRef
30.
Venta LA, Hendrick RE, Adler YT et al (2001) Rates and causes of disagreement in interpretation of full-field digital mammography and film-screen mammography in a diagnostic setting. AJR Am J Roentgenol 176:1241–1248PubMed
Metadata
Title
Full-field digital mammography compared to screen film mammography in the prevalent round of a population-based screening programme: the Vestfold County Study
Authors
Einar Vigeland
Herman Klaasen
Tor Audun Klingen
Solveig Hofvind
Per Skaane
Publication date
01-01-2008
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 1/2008
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-007-0730-y

Other articles of this Issue 1/2008

European Radiology 1/2008 Go to the issue

Breast

MR-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy with a handheld biopsy system: clinical experience and results in postinterventional MR mammography after 24 h

Urogenital

Detection of peritoneal dissemination in gynecological malignancy: evaluation by diffusion-weighted MR imaging

Musculoskeletal

CT-guided vertebroplasty in osteoprotic vertebral fractures: incidence of secondary fractures and impact of intradiscal cement leakages during follow-up

Urogenital

CT urography: definition, indications and techniques. A guideline for clinical practice

Interventional

Value of Micronester coils in port-catheter implantation for continuous hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy with fixed catheter tip method

Cardiac

Prediction of myocardial recovery by dobutamine magnetic resonance imaging and delayed enhancement early after reperfused acute myocardial infarction