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: 6.34). 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
 · 
70 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Chinese translation Computer-aided detection (CAD) has rapidly diffused into screening mammography practice despite limited and conflicting data on its clinical effect. To determine associations between CAD use during screening mammography and the incidence of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and invasive breast cancer, invasive cancer stage, and diagnostic testing. Retrospective cohort study. Medicare program. Women aged 67 to 89 years having screening mammography between 2001 and 2006 in U.S. SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results) regions (409 459 mammograms from 163 099 women). Incident DCIS and invasive breast cancer within 1 year after mammography, invasive cancer stage, and diagnostic testing within 90 days after screening among women without breast cancer. From 2001 to 2006, CAD prevalence increased from 3.6% to 60.5%. Use of CAD was associated with greater DCIS incidence (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.17 [95% CI, 1.11 to 1.23]) but no difference in invasive breast cancer incidence (adjusted OR, 1.00 [CI, 0.97 to 1.03]). Among women with invasive cancer, CAD was associated with greater likelihood of stage I to II versus III to IV cancer (adjusted OR, 1.27 [CI, 1.14 to 1.41]). In women without breast cancer, CAD was associated with increased odds of diagnostic mammography (adjusted OR, 1.28 [CI, 1.27 to 1.29]), breast ultrasonography (adjusted OR, 1.07 [CI, 1.06 to 1.09]), and breast biopsy (adjusted OR, 1.10 [CI, 1.08 to 1.12]). Short follow-up for cancer stage, potential unmeasured confounding, and uncertain generalizability to younger women. Use of CAD during screening mammography among Medicare enrollees is associated with increased DCIS incidence, the diagnosis of invasive breast cancer at earlier stages, and increased diagnostic testing among women without breast cancer. Center for Healthcare Policy and Research, University of California, Davis.
    Annals of internal medicine 04/2013; 158(8):580-7. · 13.98 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To determine the effect of transition to digital screening mammography on clinical outcome measures, including recall rate, cancer detection rate, and positive predictive value (PPV). Institutional review board approval and the need for informed consent were waived for this HIPAA-complaint study. Practice audit data were obtained for three breast imaging radiologists from 2004 to 2009. These data were sorted by time period into the following groups: baseline (2004-2005), digital year 1 (2007), digital year 2 (2008), and digital year 3 (2009). The χ(2) and Fisher exact tests were used to assess differences in proportions among and between years. Clinical outcomes based on lesion type from 2004 to 2008 were also compared. Computer-aided detection was used. The three radiologists interpreted 32 600 screen-film mammograms and 33 879 digital mammograms. Recall rates increased from 6.0% at baseline to 7.1% in digital year 1 (P < .0001) and continued to increase in subsequent years to 8.5%. The cancer detection rate increased from 3.3 at baseline to 5.3 in digital year 1 (P = .0061), and it remained higher than that at baseline in subsequent years. PPV after screening mammogaphy (PPV(1)) increased from 5.6% at baseline to 7.5% in digital year 1 and returned to baseline levels in digital year 3. In contrast, PPV after biopsy (PPV(3)) decreased from 44.5% at baseline to 30.3% in digital year 3 (P = .0021). From 2004 to 2008, 3444 patients with 3493 lesions were recalled. The percentage of recalls for calcifications increased from 13.8% at baseline to a peak of 23.9% in digital year 1 and 17.9% in digital year 2. Both PPV(1) and PPV(3) decreased for calcifications after the digital transition. Recall rate and cancer detection rate increase for at least 2 years after the transition to digital screening mammography. PPV(3) is significantly reduced after digital transition, primarily in patients with microcalcifications.
    Radiology 09/2011; 260(3):664-70. · 6.34 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE. The objective of our study was to evaluate whether the transition from film-screen mammography (FSM) to digital mammography (DM) was associated with increased detection of high-risk breast lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS. A retrospective search identified 142 cases of atypia or lobular neoplasia (LN) diagnosed in women with mammographic calcifications between January 2004 and August 2010. We excluded lesions upgraded to cancer at excisional biopsy, lesions in women with ipsilateral cancer within 2 years of mammography, and lesions that presented as a mass only. The cases included in the cohort were 82 (57.7%) cases of atypical ductal hyperplasia; 17 (12%) atypical lobular hyperplasia; 25 (17.6%) lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS); 12 (8.5%) atypia and LCIS; and six (4.2%) other atypia. The institution transitioned from predominantly performing FSM in 2004 to performing only DM by 2010. Pathology was interpreted by breast pathologists. The annual detection rate was calculated by dividing the number of high-risk lesions by mammography volume. RESULTS. Of the 142 cases of atypia or LN, 52 (36.6%) were detected using FSM and 90 (63.4%) were detected using DM. The detection rate was higher with DM (1.24/1000 mammographic studies) than FSM (0.37/1000 mammographic studies). The detection rate by year ranged between 0.21 and 0.64 per 1000 mammographic studies for FSM and between 0.32 and 1.49 per 1000 mammographic studies for DM. The median size of the calcifications was 8 mm on DM and 7 mm on FSM. The most common appearance was clustered amorphous or indistinct calcifications on both FSM and DM. CONCLUSION. The transition from FSM to DM was associated with a threefold increase in the detection rate of high-risk lesions. Improved detection may allow enhanced screening, risk reduction treatment, and possibly breast cancer prevention. However, increased detection of high-risk lesions may also result in oversurveillance and treatment.
    American Journal of Roentgenology 11/2013; 201(5):1148-54. · 2.90 Impact Factor