Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Radiology 9/2011

01-09-2011 | Breast

Differences in radiological patterns, tumour characteristics and diagnostic precision between digital mammography and screen-film mammography in four breast cancer screening programmes in Spain

Authors: Laia Domingo, Anabel Romero, Francesc Belvis, Mar Sánchez, Joana Ferrer, Dolores Salas, Josefa Ibáñez, Alfonso Vega, Francesc Ferrer, M. Soledad Laso, Francesc Macià, Xavier Castells, Maria Sala

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 9/2011

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

To compare tumour characteristics between cancers detected with screen-film mammography (SFM) and digital mammography (DM) and to evaluate changes in positive predictive values (PPVs) for further assessments, for invasive procedures and for distinct radiological patterns in recalled women.

Methods

242,838 screening mammograms (171,191 SFM and 71,647 DM) from 103,613 women aged 45–69 years, performed in four population-based breast cancer screening programmes in Spain, were included. The tumour characteristics and PPVs of each group were compared. Radiological patterns (masses, calcifications, distortions and asymmetries) among recalled women were described and PPVs were evaluated.

Results

The percentages of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) were higher in DM than in SFM both in the first [18.5% vs. 15.8%(p = 0.580)] and in successive screenings [23.2% vs. 15.7%(p = 0.115)]. PPVs for masses, asymmetries and calcifications were higher in DM, being statistically significant in masses (5.3% vs. 3.9%; proportion ratio: 1.37 95%CI: 1.08–1.72). Among cancers detected by calcifications, the percentage of DCIS was higher in DM (60.3% vs. 46.4%, p = 0.060).

Conclusions

PPVs were higher when DM was used, both for further assessments and for invasive procedures, with similar cancer detection rates and no statistically significant differences in tumour characteristics. The greatest improvements in PPVs were found for masses.
Literature
2.
go back to reference Vinnicombe S, Pinto Pereira SM, McCormack VA, Shiel S, Perry N, Dos Santos Silva IM (2005) Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparison within the UK breast screening programme and systematic review of published data. Radiology 251:347–358. doi:10.1148/radiol.2512081235 CrossRef Vinnicombe S, Pinto Pereira SM, McCormack VA, Shiel S, Perry N, Dos Santos Silva IM (2005) Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparison within the UK breast screening programme and systematic review of published data. Radiology 251:347–358. doi:10.​1148/​radiol.​2512081235 CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E et al (2005) Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 353:1773–1783PubMedCrossRef Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E et al (2005) Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 353:1773–1783PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Sala M, Comas M, Macia F, Martinez J, Casamitjana M, Castells X (2009) Implementation of digital mammography in a population-based breast cancer screening programme: effect of screening round on recall rate and cancer detection. Radiology 252:31–39. doi:10.1148/radiol.2521080696 PubMedCrossRef Sala M, Comas M, Macia F, Martinez J, Casamitjana M, Castells X (2009) Implementation of digital mammography in a population-based breast cancer screening programme: effect of screening round on recall rate and cancer detection. Radiology 252:31–39. doi:10.​1148/​radiol.​2521080696 PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference 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 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
7.
go back to reference Vanovcanova L, Lehotska V, Rauova K (2010) Digital mammography—a new trend in breast carcinoma diagnostics. Bratisl Lek Listy 111:510–513PubMed Vanovcanova L, Lehotska V, Rauova K (2010) Digital mammography—a new trend in breast carcinoma diagnostics. Bratisl Lek Listy 111:510–513PubMed
9.
go back to reference 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 programmeme: The Vestfold county study. Eur Radiol 18:183–191. doi:10.1007/s00330-007-0730-y PubMedCrossRef 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 programmeme: The Vestfold county study. Eur Radiol 18:183–191. doi:10.​1007/​s00330-007-0730-y PubMedCrossRef
10.
11.
12.
go back to reference Weigel S, Decker T, Korsching E, Hungermann D, Bocker W, Heindel W (2010) Calcifications in digital mammographic screening: improvement of early detection of invasive breast cancers? Radiology 255:738–745. doi:10.1148/radiol.10091173 PubMedCrossRef Weigel S, Decker T, Korsching E, Hungermann D, Bocker W, Heindel W (2010) Calcifications in digital mammographic screening: improvement of early detection of invasive breast cancers? Radiology 255:738–745. doi:10.​1148/​radiol.​10091173 PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Hambly NM, McNicholas MM, Phelan N, Hargaden GC, O’Doherty A, Flanagan FL (2009) Comparison of digital mammography and screen-film mammography in breast cancer screening: a review in the Irish breast screening programme. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193:1010–1018. doi:10.2214/AJR.08.2157 PubMedCrossRef Hambly NM, McNicholas MM, Phelan N, Hargaden GC, O’Doherty A, Flanagan FL (2009) Comparison of digital mammography and screen-film mammography in breast cancer screening: a review in the Irish breast screening programme. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193:1010–1018. doi:10.​2214/​AJR.​08.​2157 PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Kalager M, Zelen M, Langmark F, Adami HO (2010) Effect of screening mammography on breast-cancer mortality in Norway. N Engl J Med 363:1203–1210PubMedCrossRef Kalager M, Zelen M, Langmark F, Adami HO (2010) Effect of screening mammography on breast-cancer mortality in Norway. N Engl J Med 363:1203–1210PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C, Tornberg S, Holland R, von Karsa L (2008) European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth edition—summary document. Ann Oncol 19:614–622. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdm481 PubMedCrossRef Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C, Tornberg S, Holland R, von Karsa L (2008) European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth edition—summary document. Ann Oncol 19:614–622. doi:10.​1093/​annonc/​mdm481 PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Sala M, Salas D, Belvis F et al (2011) Reduction in false-positive results after the introduction of digital mammography: analysis from four population-based breast cancer screening programs in Spain. Radiology 258:388–395PubMedCrossRef Sala M, Salas D, Belvis F et al (2011) Reduction in false-positive results after the introduction of digital mammography: analysis from four population-based breast cancer screening programs in Spain. Radiology 258:388–395PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Skaane P, Hofvind S, Skjennald A (2007) Randomized trial of screen-film versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading in population-based screening programme: follow-up and final results of Oslo II study. Radiology 244:708–717. doi:10.1148/radiol.2443061478 PubMedCrossRef Skaane P, Hofvind S, Skjennald A (2007) Randomized trial of screen-film versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading in population-based screening programme: follow-up and final results of Oslo II study. Radiology 244:708–717. doi:10.​1148/​radiol.​2443061478 PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Lipasti S, Anttila A, Pamilo M (2010) Mammographic findings of women recalled for diagnostic work-up in digital versus screen-film mammography in a population-based screening programme. Acta Radiol 51:491–497. doi:10.3109/02841851003691961 PubMedCrossRef Lipasti S, Anttila A, Pamilo M (2010) Mammographic findings of women recalled for diagnostic work-up in digital versus screen-film mammography in a population-based screening programme. Acta Radiol 51:491–497. doi:10.​3109/​0284185100369196​1 PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Román R, Sala M, Salas D, Ascunce N, Zubizarreta R, Castells X, et al. (2011) Effect of protocol-related variables and women’s characteristics on the cumulative false-positive risk in breast cancer screening. Ann Oncol doi:10.1093/annonc/mdr032 Román R, Sala M, Salas D, Ascunce N, Zubizarreta R, Castells X, et al. (2011) Effect of protocol-related variables and women’s characteristics on the cumulative false-positive risk in breast cancer screening. Ann Oncol doi:10.​1093/​annonc/​mdr032
21.
go back to reference Ernster VL, Barclay J, Kerlikowske K, Wilkie H, Ballard-Barbash R (2000) Mortality among women with ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast in the population-based surveillance, epidemiology and end results programme. Arch Intern Med 160:953–958PubMedCrossRef Ernster VL, Barclay J, Kerlikowske K, Wilkie H, Ballard-Barbash R (2000) Mortality among women with ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast in the population-based surveillance, epidemiology and end results programme. Arch Intern Med 160:953–958PubMedCrossRef
25.
go back to reference Feig SA (2000) Ductal carcinoma in situ. Implications for screening mammography. Radiol Clin North Am 38:653–668, viiPubMedCrossRef Feig SA (2000) Ductal carcinoma in situ. Implications for screening mammography. Radiol Clin North Am 38:653–668, viiPubMedCrossRef
27.
go back to reference Yang WT, Lai CJ, Whitman GJ, Murphy WA, Dryden MJ, Kushwaha AC, Sahin AA, Johnston D, Dempsey PJ, Shaw CC (2006) Comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection and characterization of simulated small masses. AJR Am J Roentgenol 187:W576–581. doi:10.2214/AJR.05.0126 PubMedCrossRef Yang WT, Lai CJ, Whitman GJ, Murphy WA, Dryden MJ, Kushwaha AC, Sahin AA, Johnston D, Dempsey PJ, Shaw CC (2006) Comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection and characterization of simulated small masses. AJR Am J Roentgenol 187:W576–581. doi:10.​2214/​AJR.​05.​0126 PubMedCrossRef
28.
go back to reference Pinker K, Perry N, Vinnicombe S, Shiel S, Weber M (2011) Conspicuity of breast cancer according to histopathological type and breast density when imaged by full-field digital mammography compared with screen-film mammography. Eur Radiol 21(1):18–25. doi:10.1007/s00330-010-1906-4 PubMedCrossRef Pinker K, Perry N, Vinnicombe S, Shiel S, Weber M (2011) Conspicuity of breast cancer according to histopathological type and breast density when imaged by full-field digital mammography compared with screen-film mammography. Eur Radiol 21(1):18–25. doi:10.​1007/​s00330-010-1906-4 PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Differences in radiological patterns, tumour characteristics and diagnostic precision between digital mammography and screen-film mammography in four breast cancer screening programmes in Spain
Authors
Laia Domingo
Anabel Romero
Francesc Belvis
Mar Sánchez
Joana Ferrer
Dolores Salas
Josefa Ibáñez
Alfonso Vega
Francesc Ferrer
M. Soledad Laso
Francesc Macià
Xavier Castells
Maria Sala
Publication date
01-09-2011
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 9/2011
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2143-1

Other articles of this Issue 9/2011

European Radiology 9/2011 Go to the issue