Article

Breast Cancer Screening Results 5 Years after Introduction of Digital Mammography in a Population-based Screening Program

Department of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Geert Grootteplein 10, 6500 HB Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Radiology (Impact Factor: 6.21). 07/2009; 253(2):353-8. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2532090225
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To compare full-field digital mammography (FFDM) using computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) with screen-film mammography (SFM) in a population-based breast cancer screening program for initial and subsequent screening examinations.
The study was approved by the regional medical ethics review board. Informed consent was not required. In a breast cancer screening facility, two of seven conventional mammography units were replaced with FFDM units. Digital mammograms were interpreted by using soft-copy reading with CAD. The same team of radiologists was involved in the double reading of FFDM and SFM images, with differences of opinion resolved in consensus. After 5 years, screening outcomes obtained with both modalities were compared for initial and subsequent screening examination findings.
A total of 367,600 screening examinations were performed, of which 56,518 were digital. Breast cancer was detected in 1927 women (317 with FFDM). At initial screenings, the cancer detection rate was .77% with FFDM and .62% with SFM. At subsequent screenings, detection rates were .55% and .49%, respectively. Differences were not statistically significant. Recalls based on microcalcifications alone doubled with FFDM. A significant increase in the detection of ductal carcinoma in situ was found with FFDM (P < .01). The fraction of invasive cancers with microcalcifications as the only sign of malignancy increased significantly, from 8.1% to 15.8% (P < .001). Recall rates were significantly higher with FFDM in the initial round (4.4% vs 2.3%, P < .001) and in the subsequent round (1.7% vs 1.2%, P < .001).
With the FFDM-CAD combination, detection performance is at least as good as that with SFM. The detection of ductal carcinoma in situ and microcalcification clusters improved with FFDM using CAD, while the recall rate increased.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
91 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives: To audit the outcomes of patients with non-pleomorphic lobular in situ neoplasia (LISN) of the breast and clarify the role of vacuum-assisted biopsy (VAB), surgical biopsy and conservative management for this condition. Materials and method: A single-centre retrospective review of hospital databases covering a 14-year period was performed. Patients with LISN as the most pertinent diagnosis on core needle biopsy (CNB), vacuum-assisted biopsy (VABs) or surgical biopsy were identified. The radiological features, histopathological findings and outcome of subsequent annual mammography were recorded. Results: Between 1998 and 2012 there were 70 patients with LISN as the most pertinent diagnosis at CNB, VAB or surgery. 52 underwent VAB, typically 18 11-gauge samples. The pathology was upgraded from the preceding 14-gauge CNB in 7 cases. Of 11 patients who underwent surgery after VAB, one (who had undergone a low tissue yield VAB) was upgraded. There were no new breast cancers during a mean annual mammographic follow-up period of 53 months in 40 patients who had VAB with complete radiological-histopathological concordance. Conclusion: Provided there is adequate tissue sampling and radiological-pathological concordance, VAB is a safe alternative to open biopsy in the management of non-pleomorphic LISN. (C) 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
    Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) 07/2014; 23(5). DOI:10.1016/j.breast.2014.06.016 · 2.09 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose To critically evaluate and confirm previous results regarding the diagnostic accuracy of digital mammography screening (DM), compared to screen-film mammography (SFM) in the whole Dutch screening programme, in the period of 2004–2010, during which a full transition from SFM to DM was made. Materials and methods 1.5 million DM and 4.6 million SFM were read in the Dutch national breast cancer screening programme in the period of 2004–2010. We evaluated recall rate, detection rate, positive predictive value and tumour-size distribution for younger and older women, for first time participants and women having a timely subsequent screen. We compared DM screens read by radiologists reading DM and SFM (DM-group) to SFM screens read by these radiologists (SFM-group) and to SFM screens read by radiologists reading only SFM (SFMonly-group). Results Recall rate was 2.0% (95% confidence interval (C.I.): 2.0; 2.1) in the DM-group, compared to 1.6% (95% C.I.: 1.6; 1.6) in the SFM-group and 1.6% (95% C.I.: 1.5; 1.6) in the SFM only-group. The overall detection rates were 5.9/1000 screens (95% C.I.: 5.7; 6.0) in the DM-group, 5.1/1000 screens (95% C.I.: 5.0; 5.2) in the SFM-group and 5.0/1000 screens (95% C.I.: 5.0; 5.1) in the SFM only-group. Detection rate rose most markedly in younger women (age 49–54) from 4.0/1000 screens to 5.1/1000 screens (p-value < 0.001). Positive predictive value (PPV) in DM rose from 18.4% (95% C.I.: 14.6; 23.1) in 2004 to 32.5% (95% C.I.: 31.7; 33.2) in 2010. Detection rate rose in SFM-group from 5.0/1000 screens (95% C.I.: 4.7; 5.3) in 2004 to 5.5/1000 screens (95% C.I.: 5.2; 5.7) in 2010. Detection rate in DM-group rose mostly due to ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) detection especially in younger women/first screens. The proportion of T1a tumours was significantly higher in DM-group; otherwise size distribution did not change significantly for invasive carcinoma. Recall rates were variable between different screening regions. Conclusion In accordance to previous, smaller, studies, we can confirm that DM has a higher detection rate compared to SFM, at the cost of a higher recall rate and lower PPV. More DCIS and a higher fraction of very small tumours were detected with DM, which has positive consequences for the stage shift as a result of mass screening.
    European Journal of Cancer 11/2013; 49(16):3517–3525. DOI:10.1016/j.ejca.2013.06.020 · 4.82 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We determined the re-attendance rate at screening mammography after a single or a repeated false positive recall and we assessed the effects of transition from screen-film mammography (SFM) to full-field digital mammography (FFDM) on screening outcome in women recalled twice for the same mammographic abnormality. The study population consisted of a consecutive series of 302,912 SFM and 90,288 FFDM screens. During a 2 years follow-up period (until the next biennial screen), we collected the breast imaging reports and biopsy results of all recalled women. Re-attendance at biennial screening mammography was 93.2 % (95 % CI 93.1-93.3 %) for women with a negative screen (i.e., no recall at screening mammography), 65.4 % (95 % CI 64.0-66.8 %) for women recalled once, 56.7 % (95 % CI 47.1-66.4 %) for women recalled twice but for different lesions and 44.3 % (95 % CI 31.4-57.1 %) for women recalled twice for the same lesion. FFDM recalls comprised a significantly larger proportion of women who had been recalled twice for the same lesion (1.9 % of recalls (52 women) at FFDM vs. 0.9 % of recalls (37 women) at SFM, P < 0.001) and the positive predictive value of these recalls (PPV) was significantly lower at FFDM (15.4 vs. 35.1 %, P = 0.03). At review, 20 of 52 women (39.5 %, all with benign outcome) would not have been recalled for a second time at FFDM if the previous hard copy SFM screen had been available for comparison. We conclude that a repeated false positive recall for the same lesion significantly lowered the probability of screening re-attendance. The first round of FFDM significantly increased the proportion of women recalled twice for the same lesion, with a significantly lower PPV of these lesions. Almost 40 % of repeatedly recalled women would not have been recalled the second time if the previous hard copy SFM screen had been available for comparison at the time of FFDM.
    Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 04/2014; 145(2). DOI:10.1007/s10549-014-2959-x · 4.47 Impact Factor