Characteristics and prognosis of interval cancers after biennial screen-film or full-field digital screening mammography

被引:0
|
作者
Roy J. P. Weber
Rob M. G. van Bommel
Marieke W. Louwman
Joost Nederend
Adri C. Voogd
Frits H. Jansen
Vivianne C. G. Tjan-Heijnen
Lucien E. M. Duijm
机构
[1] Catharina Hospital,Department of Radiology
[2] Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization (IKNL),Department of Research
[3] Maastricht University,Department of Epidemiology
[4] Maastricht University Medical Centre,Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology
[5] Canisius-Wilhelmina Hospital,Department of Radiology
[6] Dutch Reference Centre for Screening,undefined
来源
关键词
Breast cancer; Screening mammography; Interval cancer; Digital mammography and survival rates;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
We determined the characteristics and prognosis of interval breast cancers (IC) at screen-film (SFM) and full-field digital (FFDM) screening mammography. The study population consisted of 417,746 consecutive screening mammograms (302,699 SFM screens and 115,047 FFDM screens), obtained between 2000 and 2011. During 2-year follow-up, we collected breast imaging reports, surgical reports, and pathology results. A total of 800 ICs had been diagnosed in the screened population, of which 288 detected in the first year (early ICs) and 512 in the second year (late ICs) after a negative screen. 31.3 % of early IC’s and 19.1 % of late IC’s, respectively, were visible in retrospect on the latest previous screens, but had been missed during screening (P < 0.001). Missed invasive ICs were larger (28.5 mm vs. 23.9 mm, P = 0.003) and showed a higher fraction of T3+cancers (16.9 vs. 8.5 %, P = 0.02) than true ICs (i.e., not visible at the latest screen). A higher portion of missed than true ICs underwent mastectomy (44.7 vs. 30.8 %, P = 0.002). We found no differences in mammographic and tumor characteristics for early ICs, detected either after SFM or FFDM. Late ICs following FFDM were more often true ICs than missed ICs (69.0 vs. 57.6 %, P = 0.03) and more often receptor triple negative (P = 0.02), compared to late ICs at SFM. Interval cancer subgroups showed comparable overall survival. Interval cancer subgroups show distinctive mammographic and tumor characteristics but a comparable overall survival.
引用
收藏
页码:471 / 483
页数:12
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Breast Cancer: Missed Interval and Screening-detected Cancer at Full-Field Digital Mammography and Screen-Film Mammography-Results from a Retrospective Review
    Hoff, Solveig R.
    Abrahamsen, Anne-Line
    Samset, Jon Helge
    Vigeland, Einar
    Klepp, Olbjorn
    Hofvind, Solveig
    RADIOLOGY, 2012, 264 (02) : 378 - 386
  • [22] Low-contrast lesion detection: Comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography
    Hendrick, RE
    Berns, E
    Chorbajian, B
    Choi, K
    Lewin, JM
    Sisney, GA
    RADIOLOGY, 1997, 205 : 569 - 569
  • [23] Population-based mammography screening: Comparison of screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography using soft-copy reading
    Skaane, A
    Young, K
    Egge, ES
    Scheel, B
    Sovik, E
    Skjennald, A
    RADIOLOGY, 2001, 221 : 283 - 284
  • [24] Comparison of reading time between screen-film mammography and soft-copied, full-field digital mammography
    Ishiyama, Mitsutomi
    Tsunoda-Shimizu, Hiroko
    Kikuchi, Mari
    Saida, Yukihisa
    Hiramatsu, Sonoe
    BREAST CANCER, 2009, 16 (01) : 58 - 61
  • [25] Magnification mammography: a comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for the detection of simulated small masses and microcalcifications
    K.-P. Hermann
    S. Obenauer
    M. Funke
    E. Grabbe
    European Radiology, 2002, 12 : 2188 - 2191
  • [26] Magnification mammography: a comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for the detection of simulated small masses and microcalcifications
    Hermann, KP
    Obenauer, S
    Funke, M
    Grabbe, EH
    EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2002, 12 (09) : 2188 - 2191
  • [27] Comparison of interpretation times for screening exams between soft copy full-field digital mammography and hard copy screen-film mammography
    Solari, M
    Berns, EA
    Hendrick, RE
    Wolfman, JA
    Willis, W
    Segal, L
    DeLeon, P
    Benjamin, S
    Reddy, D
    Mendelson, E
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2004, 182 (04) : 11 - 11
  • [28] Contrast-detail comparison of a full-field digital mammography system and a screen-film system
    Rosol, MS
    Niklason, LT
    Venkatakrishnan, V
    Silvenoinnen, H
    Kopans, DB
    Hamberg, LM
    RADIOLOGY, 1999, 213P : 151 - 151
  • [29] Observer variability in screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading
    Per Skaane
    Felix Diekmann
    Corinne Balleyguier
    Susanne Diekmann
    Jean-Charles Piguet
    Kari Young
    Michael Abdelnoor
    Loren Niklason
    European Radiology, 2008, 18
  • [30] Observer variability in screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading
    Skaane, Per
    Diekmann, Felix
    Balleyguier, Corinne
    Diekmann, Susanne
    Piguet, Jean-Charles
    Young, Kari
    Abdelnoor, Michael
    Niklason, Loren
    EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2008, 18 (06) : 1134 - 1143