Comparison of Digital Screening Mammography and Screen-Film Mammography in the Early Detection of Clinically Relevant Cancers: A Multicenter Study

被引:112
作者
Bluekens, Adriana M. J. [1 ,2 ]
Holland, Roland [1 ]
Karssemeijer, Nico [3 ]
Broeders, Mireille J. M. [1 ,4 ]
den Heeten, Gerard J. [1 ,5 ]
机构
[1] Natl Expert & Training Ctr Breast Canc Screening, NL-6503 GJ Nijmegen, Netherlands
[2] St Elizabeth Hosp, Dept Radiol, Tilburg, Netherlands
[3] Radboud Univ Nijmegen, Med Ctr, Dept Radiol, NL-6525 ED Nijmegen, Netherlands
[4] Radboud Univ Nijmegen, Med Ctr, Dept Epidemiol Biostat & HTA, NL-6525 ED Nijmegen, Netherlands
[5] Univ Amsterdam, Acad Med Ctr, Dept Radiol, NL-1105 AZ Amsterdam, Netherlands
关键词
CARCINOMA IN-SITU; BREAST-CANCER; RANDOMIZED-TRIAL; OVERDIAGNOSIS; PROGRAM; WOMEN; HETEROGENEITY; OVERTREATMENT; PERFORMANCE; IMPACT;
D O I
10.1148/radiol.12111461
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 mammography with digital mammography in a breast cancer screening program, with a focus on the clinical relevance of detected cancers. Materials and Methods: The study was approved by the regional medical ethics review board. Informed consent was not required. Before the nationwide transition to digital mammography in the Dutch biennial screening program, the performance of digital mammography was studied in three screening regions. For initial screening examinations, mediolateral oblique and craniocaudal views were obtained of each breast. In subsequent examinations, the mediolateral oblique view was standard. A craniocaudal view was added if indicated. Screening outcomes obtained with screen-film mammography and digital mammography, including radiologic and pathologic characteristics, were compared for initial and subsequent examinations. Results: A total of 1 198 493 screening examinations were performed between 2003 and 2007. Recall was indicated in 18 896 cases (screen-film mammography: 2.6% at initial examinations, 1.3% at subsequent examinations; digital mammography: 4.4% at initial examinations, 2.1% at subsequent examinations; P < .001 for both). Breast cancer was diagnosed in 6410 women (detection rate per 1000 women with screen-film mammography: 5.6 at initial examinations, 5.2 at subsequent examinations; detection rate per 1000 women with digital mammography: 6.8 at initial examinations, 6.1 at subsequent examinations; P = .02 and P < .001, respectively). Digital mammography depicted significantly more ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) lesions, irrespective of screening round. Invasive carcinoma was detected significantly more often in subsequent examinations, particularly when associated with microcalcifications (P = .047). The distribution of the histopathologic differentiation grades for DCIS and invasive carcinoma were similar with both modalities. However, with digital mammography more high-grade DCIS lesions were detected at subsequent examinations (P = .013). Conclusion: In a population-based breast screening program, the performance of digital mammography in the detection of DCIS and invasive carcinoma was substantially better than that of screen-film mammography. There is no sign of an increase in detection of low-grade DCIS lesions-indicative of possible overdiagnosis-with digital breast cancer screening. Rather, digital mammography appears to add to the detection of high-grade DCIS. (C) RSNA, 2012
引用
收藏
页码:707 / 714
页数:8
相关论文
共 41 条
  • [1] Consequences of digital mammography in population-based breast cancer screening: initial changes and long-term impact on referral rates
    Bluekens, Adriana M. J.
    Karssemeijer, Nico
    Beijerinck, David
    Deurenberg, Jan J. M.
    van Engen, Ruben E.
    Broeders, Mireille J. M.
    den Heeten, Gerard J.
    [J]. EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2010, 20 (09) : 2067 - 2073
  • [2] Cady B, 1998, J SURG ONCOL, V69, P60, DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1096-9098(199810)69:2<60::AID-JSO2>3.0.CO
  • [3] 2-3
  • [4] Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of breast cancer - Microsimulation modelling estimates based on observed screen and clinical data
    de Koning, HJ
    Draisma, G
    Fracheboud, J
    de Bruijn, A
    [J]. BREAST CANCER RESEARCH, 2006, 8 (01):
  • [5] Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: Comparative accuracy in concurrent screening cohorts
    Del Turco, Marco Rosselli
    Mantellini, Paola
    Ciatto, Stefano
    Bonardi, Rita
    Martinelli, Francesca
    Lazzari, Barbara
    Houssami, Nehmat
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2007, 189 (04) : 860 - 866
  • [6] Devilee Peter., 2003, World Health Organization: Tumours of the Breast and Female Genital Organs
  • [7] Differences in radiological patterns, tumour characteristics and diagnostic precision between digital mammography and screen-film mammography in four breast cancer screening programmes in Spain
    Domingo, Laia
    Romero, Anabel
    Belvis, Francesc
    Sanchez, Mar
    Ferrer, Joana
    Salas, Dolores
    Ibanez, Josefa
    Vega, Alfonso
    Ferrer, Francesc
    Soledad Laso, M.
    Macia, Francesc
    Castells, Xavier
    Sala, Maria
    [J]. EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2011, 21 (09) : 2020 - 2028
  • [8] Absolute numbers of lives saved and overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening, from a randomized trial and from the Breast Screening Programme in England
    Duffy, Stephen W.
    Tabar, Laszlo
    Olsen, Anne Helene
    Vitak, Bedrich
    Allgood, Prue C.
    Chen, Tony H. H.
    Yen, Amy M. F.
    Smith, Robert A.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCREENING, 2010, 17 (01) : 25 - 30
  • [9] Ernster VL, 2002, JNCI-J NATL CANCER I, V94, P1546
  • [10] Screen detected ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS): overdiagnosis or an obligate precursor of invasive disease?
    Evans, AJ
    Pinder, SE
    Ellis, IO
    Wilson, ARM
    [J]. JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCREENING, 2001, 8 (03) : 149 - 151