Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Radiology 4/2011

01-04-2011 | Breast

The impact of digital mammography on screening a young cohort of women for breast cancer in an urban specialist breast unit

Authors: Nicholas M. Perry, N. Patani, S. E. Milner, K. Pinker, K. Mokbel, P. C. Allgood, S. W. Duffy

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 4/2011

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective

To compare the diagnostic performance of full-field digital mammography (FFDM) with screen-film mammography (SFM) in a corporate screening programme including younger women.

Methods

Data were available on 14,946 screening episodes, 5010 FFDM and 9936 SFM. Formal analysis was by logistic regression, adjusting for age and calendar year. FFDM is compared with SFM with reference to cancer detection rates, cancers presenting as clustering microcalcifications, recall rates and PPV of recall.

Results

Overall detection rates were 6.4 cancers per thousand screens for FFDM and 2.8 per thousand for SFM (p < 0.001). In women aged 50+ cancer detection was significantly higher for FFDM at 8.6 per thousand vs. 4.0 per thousand, (p = 0.002). In women <50, cancer detection was also significantly higher for FFDM at 4.3 per thousand vs. 1.4 per thousand, (p = 0.02). Cancers detected as clustering microcalcifications increased from 0.4 per thousand with SFM to 2.0 per thousand with FFDM. Rates of assessment recall were higher for FFDM (7.3% vs. 5.0%, p < 0.001). FFDM provided a higher PPV for assessment recall, (32 cancers/364 recalls, 8.8%) than SFM, (28 cancers/493 recalls, 5.7%).

Conclusions

Cancer detection rates were significantly higher for FFDM than for SFM, especially for women <50, and cancers detected as clustering microcalcifications.
Literature
1.
go back to reference IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of Cancer Preventive Strategies (2002) Breast cancer screening. IARC handbooks of cancer prevention. IARC, Lyon IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of Cancer Preventive Strategies (2002) Breast cancer screening. IARC handbooks of cancer prevention. IARC, Lyon
2.
go back to reference Smith RA, Saslow D, Sawyer KA et al (2003) American Cancer Society guidelines for breast cancer screening: update 2003. CA Cancer J Clin 53:141–169PubMedCrossRef Smith RA, Saslow D, Sawyer KA et al (2003) American Cancer Society guidelines for breast cancer screening: update 2003. CA Cancer J Clin 53:141–169PubMedCrossRef
3.
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, 4th Edition. European Commission, XIV:3–416 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, 4th Edition. European Commission, XIV:3–416
4.
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 Pisano ED, Gatsonis CA, Yaffe MJ et al (2005) American College of Radiology Imaging Network digital mammographic imaging screening trial: objectives and methodology. Radiology 236:404–412PubMedCrossRef Pisano ED, Gatsonis CA, Yaffe MJ et al (2005) American College of Radiology Imaging Network digital mammographic imaging screening trial: objectives and methodology. Radiology 236:404–412PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference 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 189:860–866PubMedCrossRef 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 189:860–866PubMedCrossRef
7.
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 programme: the Vestfold County study. Eur Radiol 18:183–191PubMedCrossRef 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 18:183–191PubMedCrossRef
8.
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 program: follow-up and final results of Oslo II study. Radiology 244:708–717PubMedCrossRef 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 program: follow-up and final results of Oslo II study. Radiology 244:708–717PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Forrest A (1986) Breast cancer screening: report to the health ministers of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. HMSO1986 Forrest A (1986) Breast cancer screening: report to the health ministers of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. HMSO1986
12.
go back to reference Clayton R, Hills M (1993) Statistical models in epidemiology. Oxford University Press, Oxford Clayton R, Hills M (1993) Statistical models in epidemiology. Oxford University Press, Oxford
13.
go back to reference Vinnicombe S, Pinto Pereira SM, McCormack VA, Shiel S, Perry N, Dos Santos Silva IM (2009) Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparison within the UK breast screening program and systematic review of published data. Radiology 251:347–358PubMedCrossRef Vinnicombe S, Pinto Pereira SM, McCormack VA, Shiel S, Perry N, Dos Santos Silva IM (2009) Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparison within the UK breast screening program and systematic review of published data. Radiology 251:347–358PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Bluekens AM, Karssemeijer N, Beijerinck D et al (2010) Consequences of digital mammography in population-based breast cancer screening: initial changes and long-term impact on referral rates. Eur Radiol 20:2067–2073PubMedCrossRef Bluekens AM, Karssemeijer N, Beijerinck D et al (2010) Consequences of digital mammography in population-based breast cancer screening: initial changes and long-term impact on referral rates. Eur Radiol 20:2067–2073PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Van Ongeval C, Bosmans H, Van Steen A (2005) Current challenges of full field digital mammography. Radiat Prot Dosim 117:148–153CrossRef Van Ongeval C, Bosmans H, Van Steen A (2005) Current challenges of full field digital mammography. Radiat Prot Dosim 117:148–153CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Pisano ED, Cole EB, Kistner EO et al (2002) Interpretation of digital mammograms: comparison of speed and accuracy of soft-copy versus printed-film display. Radiology 223:483–488PubMedCrossRef Pisano ED, Cole EB, Kistner EO et al (2002) Interpretation of digital mammograms: comparison of speed and accuracy of soft-copy versus printed-film display. Radiology 223:483–488PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference 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 229:877–884PubMedCrossRef 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 229:877–884PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference NHS Breast Screening Programme (2008) Annual review, NHS Cancer Screening Programme NHS Breast Screening Programme (2008) Annual review, NHS Cancer Screening Programme
19.
go back to reference Gilbert FJ, Astley SM, Gillan MG et al (2008) Single reading with computer-aided detection for screening mammography. N Engl J Med 359:1675–1684PubMedCrossRef Gilbert FJ, Astley SM, Gillan MG et al (2008) Single reading with computer-aided detection for screening mammography. N Engl J Med 359:1675–1684PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Olivotto IA, Kan L, d’Yachkova Y et al (2000) Ten years of breast screening in the Screening Mammography Program of British Columbia, 1988–97. J Med Screen 7:152–159PubMedCrossRef Olivotto IA, Kan L, d’Yachkova Y et al (2000) Ten years of breast screening in the Screening Mammography Program of British Columbia, 1988–97. J Med Screen 7:152–159PubMedCrossRef
21.
go back to reference Perry NM, Allgood PC, Milner SE, Mokbel K, Duffy SW (2008) Mammographic breast density by area of residence: possible evidence of higher density in urban areas. Curr Med Res Opin 24:365–368PubMedCrossRef Perry NM, Allgood PC, Milner SE, Mokbel K, Duffy SW (2008) Mammographic breast density by area of residence: possible evidence of higher density in urban areas. Curr Med Res Opin 24:365–368PubMedCrossRef
22.
go back to reference Freer TW, Ulissey MJ (2001) Screening mammography with computer-aided detection: prospective study of 12, 860 patients in a community breast center. Radiology 220:781–786PubMedCrossRef Freer TW, Ulissey MJ (2001) Screening mammography with computer-aided detection: prospective study of 12, 860 patients in a community breast center. Radiology 220:781–786PubMedCrossRef
23.
go back to reference Skaane P (2009) Studies comparing screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography in breast cancer screening: updated review. Acta Radiol 50:3–14PubMedCrossRef Skaane P (2009) Studies comparing screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography in breast cancer screening: updated review. Acta Radiol 50:3–14PubMedCrossRef
24.
go back to reference Lewin JM, D’Orsi CJ, Hendrick 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 Lewin JM, D’Orsi CJ, Hendrick 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
25.
go back to reference 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 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
26.
go back to reference Kopans DB (2005) Digital breast tomosynthesis and other applications of digital mammography. In: Feig SA (ed) Categorical course in diagnostic radiology: breast imaging. Radiological Society of North America, Oak Brook, pp 83–91 Kopans DB (2005) Digital breast tomosynthesis and other applications of digital mammography. In: Feig SA (ed) Categorical course in diagnostic radiology: breast imaging. Radiological Society of North America, Oak Brook, pp 83–91
27.
28.
go back to reference Yaffe MJ, Barnes GT, Orton CG (2006) Point/Counterpoint. Film mammography for breast cancer screening in younger women is no longer appropriate because of the demonstrated superiority of digital mammography for this age group. Med Phys 33:3979–3982PubMedCrossRef Yaffe MJ, Barnes GT, Orton CG (2006) Point/Counterpoint. Film mammography for breast cancer screening in younger women is no longer appropriate because of the demonstrated superiority of digital mammography for this age group. Med Phys 33:3979–3982PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
The impact of digital mammography on screening a young cohort of women for breast cancer in an urban specialist breast unit
Authors
Nicholas M. Perry
N. Patani
S. E. Milner
K. Pinker
K. Mokbel
P. C. Allgood
S. W. Duffy
Publication date
01-04-2011
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 4/2011
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-010-1968-3

Other articles of this Issue 4/2011

European Radiology 4/2011 Go to the issue