Skip to main content
Erschienen in: European Radiology 1/2008

01.01.2008 | Breast

Full-field digital mammography compared to screen film mammography in the prevalent round of a population-based screening programme: the Vestfold County Study

verfasst von: Einar Vigeland, Herman Klaasen, Tor Audun Klingen, Solveig Hofvind, Per Skaane

Erschienen in: European Radiology | Ausgabe 1/2008

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to compare the performance of full-field digital mammography (FFDM) with soft-copy reading to screen film mammography (SFM) used during the first prevalent 2-year round of population-based screening. A total of 18,239 women aged 50–69 years were screened with FFDM as part of the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Programme (NBCSP). Process indicators were compared to data from 324,763 women screened with SFM using the common national database of the NBCSP. The cancer detection rates were 0.77% (140/18,239) for FFDM and 0.65% (2,105/324,763) for SFM (p = 0.058). For ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) alone, the results were: FFDM 0.21% (38/18,239) compared to SFM 0.11% (343/324,763) (p < 0.001). Recall rates due to positive mammography were for FFDM 4.09% (746/18,239), while for SFM 4.16% (13,520/324,764) (p = 0.645), due to technically insufficient imaging: FFDM 0.22% (40/18,239) versus SFM 0.61% (1,993/324,763) (p < 0.001). The positive predictive value (PPV) in the FFDM group was 16.6% (140/843), while 13.5% (2,105/15,537) for SFM (p = 0.014). No statistically significant differences were recorded concerning histological morphology, tumour size, or lymph node involvement. In conclusion FFDM had a significantly higher detection rate for DCIS than SFM. For invasive cancers no difference was seen. FFDM also had a significantly higher PPV and a significantly lower technical recall rate.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Obenauer S, Luftner-Nagel S, von Heyden D, Munzel U, Baum F, Grabbe E (2002) Screen film vs full-field digital mammography: image quality, detectability and characterization of lesions. Eur Radiol 12:1697–1702. DOI 10.1007/s00330-001-1269-y PubMedCrossRef Obenauer S, Luftner-Nagel S, von Heyden D, Munzel U, Baum F, Grabbe E (2002) Screen film vs full-field digital mammography: image quality, detectability and characterization of lesions. Eur Radiol 12:1697–1702. DOI 10.​1007/​s00330-001-1269-y PubMedCrossRef
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Berns EA, Henrick RE, Cutter GR (2002) Performance comparison of full-field digital to screen film mammography in clinical practice. Med Phys 29:830–834PubMedCrossRef Berns EA, Henrick RE, Cutter GR (2002) Performance comparison of full-field digital to screen film mammography in clinical practice. Med Phys 29:830–834PubMedCrossRef
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Pisano ED, Cole EB, Major S et al (2000) Radiologists’ preferences for digital mammographic display. Radiology 216:820–830PubMed Pisano ED, Cole EB, Major S et al (2000) Radiologists’ preferences for digital mammographic display. Radiology 216:820–830PubMed
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Lewin JM, Hendrick RE, D’Orsi CJ et al (2001) Comparison of full-field digital mammography with screen-film mammography for cancer detection: results of 4,945 paired eaxinations. Radiology 218:873–880PubMed Lewin JM, Hendrick RE, D’Orsi CJ et al (2001) Comparison of full-field digital mammography with screen-film mammography for cancer detection: results of 4,945 paired eaxinations. Radiology 218:873–880PubMed
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Lewin JM, D’Orsi CJ, Henrick 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, Henrick 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
7.
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Skaane P, Skjennald A (2004) Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: randomized trial in a population-based screening programme-the Oslo II study. Radiology 232:197–204. DOI 10.1148/radiol.2321031624 PubMedCrossRef Skaane P, Skjennald A (2004) Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: randomized trial in a population-based screening programme-the Oslo II study. Radiology 232:197–204. DOI 10.​1148/​radiol.​2321031624 PubMedCrossRef
9.
10.
Zurück zum Zitat The Ministry of Health and Social Affairs. Regulations on the collection and processing of personal health data in the Cancer Registry of Norway (Cancer Registry Regulations) (2001) The Ministry of Health and Social Affairs, Oslo, Norway The Ministry of Health and Social Affairs. Regulations on the collection and processing of personal health data in the Cancer Registry of Norway (Cancer Registry Regulations) (2001) The Ministry of Health and Social Affairs, Oslo, Norway
11.
Zurück zum Zitat European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis (2006) 4th Edition. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis (2006) 4th Edition. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Hofvind S, Wang H, Thoresen S (2004) Do the results of the process indicators in the Norwegian Breast cancer Screening Program predict future mortality reduction from breast cancer? Acta Oncol 43:467–473PubMedCrossRef Hofvind S, Wang H, Thoresen S (2004) Do the results of the process indicators in the Norwegian Breast cancer Screening Program predict future mortality reduction from breast cancer? Acta Oncol 43:467–473PubMedCrossRef
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Addendum on digital mammography to chapter 3 of the European Guidelines for Quality assurance in Mammography Screening, version 1.0, November 2003. http://www.euref.org/ Addendum on digital mammography to chapter 3 of the European Guidelines for Quality assurance in Mammography Screening, version 1.0, November 2003. http://​www.​euref.​org/​
15.
Zurück zum Zitat 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
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Yankaskas BC, Cleveland RJ, Schell MJ, Kozar R (2001) Association of recall rates with sensitivity and positive predictive values of screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 177:543–549PubMed Yankaskas BC, Cleveland RJ, Schell MJ, Kozar R (2001) Association of recall rates with sensitivity and positive predictive values of screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 177:543–549PubMed
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Ernster VL, Ballard-Barbash R, Zheng Y, Weaver DL, Cutter G, Yankaskas BC (2002) Detection of ductal carcinoma in women undergoing screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst 94:1546–1554PubMed Ernster VL, Ballard-Barbash R, Zheng Y, Weaver DL, Cutter G, Yankaskas BC (2002) Detection of ductal carcinoma in women undergoing screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst 94:1546–1554PubMed
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Van Ongeval C, Bosmans H, Van Steen A et al (2006) Evaluation of the diagnostic value of a computed radiography system by comparison of digital hard copy images with screen-film mammography: results of a prospective clinical trial. Eur Radiol 16:1360–1366. DOI 10.1007/s00330-005-0134-9 PubMedCrossRef Van Ongeval C, Bosmans H, Van Steen A et al (2006) Evaluation of the diagnostic value of a computed radiography system by comparison of digital hard copy images with screen-film mammography: results of a prospective clinical trial. Eur Radiol 16:1360–1366. DOI 10.​1007/​s00330-005-0134-9 PubMedCrossRef
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Fischer U, Baum F, Obenauer S et al (2002) Comparative study in patients with microcalcifications: full-field digital mammography vs screen-film mammography. Eur Radiol 12:2679–2683. DOI 10.1007/s00330-002-1354-x PubMed Fischer U, Baum F, Obenauer S et al (2002) Comparative study in patients with microcalcifications: full-field digital mammography vs screen-film mammography. Eur Radiol 12:2679–2683. DOI 10.​1007/​s00330-002-1354-x PubMed
23.
Zurück zum Zitat American College of Radiology (2003) Illustrated breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS™), 4th edn. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology American College of Radiology (2003) Illustrated breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS™), 4th edn. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Feig SA (2000) Ductal carcinoma in situ implications for screening mammography. Radiol Clin N Am 38:653–668PubMedCrossRef Feig SA (2000) Ductal carcinoma in situ implications for screening mammography. Radiol Clin N Am 38:653–668PubMedCrossRef
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Kessar P, Perry N, Vinnicombe SJ, Hussain HK, Carpenter R, Wells CA (2002) How significant is detection of ductal carcinoma in situ in a breast screening programme? Clin Radiol 57:807–814PubMed Kessar P, Perry N, Vinnicombe SJ, Hussain HK, Carpenter R, Wells CA (2002) How significant is detection of ductal carcinoma in situ in a breast screening programme? Clin Radiol 57:807–814PubMed
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Elmore JG, Wells CK, Lee CH, Howard DH, Fienstein AR (1994) Variability in radiologists’ interpretations of mammograms. N Engl J Med 331:1493–1499PubMedCrossRef Elmore JG, Wells CK, Lee CH, Howard DH, Fienstein AR (1994) Variability in radiologists’ interpretations of mammograms. N Engl J Med 331:1493–1499PubMedCrossRef
29.
Zurück zum Zitat Beam CA, Layde PM, Sullivan DC (1996) Variability in the interpretation of screening mammograms by US radiologists. Arch Intern Med 156:209–213PubMedCrossRef Beam CA, Layde PM, Sullivan DC (1996) Variability in the interpretation of screening mammograms by US radiologists. Arch Intern Med 156:209–213PubMedCrossRef
30.
Zurück zum Zitat Venta LA, Hendrick RE, Adler YT et al (2001) Rates and causes of disagreement in interpretation of full-field digital mammography and film-screen mammography in a diagnostic setting. AJR Am J Roentgenol 176:1241–1248PubMed Venta LA, Hendrick RE, Adler YT et al (2001) Rates and causes of disagreement in interpretation of full-field digital mammography and film-screen mammography in a diagnostic setting. AJR Am J Roentgenol 176:1241–1248PubMed
Metadaten
Titel
Full-field digital mammography compared to screen film mammography in the prevalent round of a population-based screening programme: the Vestfold County Study
verfasst von
Einar Vigeland
Herman Klaasen
Tor Audun Klingen
Solveig Hofvind
Per Skaane
Publikationsdatum
01.01.2008
Verlag
Springer-Verlag
Erschienen in
European Radiology / Ausgabe 1/2008
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-007-0730-y

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2008

European Radiology 1/2008 Zur Ausgabe

Akuter Schwindel: Wann lohnt sich eine MRT?

28.04.2024 Schwindel Nachrichten

Akuter Schwindel stellt oft eine diagnostische Herausforderung dar. Wie nützlich dabei eine MRT ist, hat eine Studie aus Finnland untersucht. Immerhin einer von sechs Patienten wurde mit akutem ischämischem Schlaganfall diagnostiziert.

Screening-Mammografie offenbart erhöhtes Herz-Kreislauf-Risiko

26.04.2024 Mammografie Nachrichten

Routinemäßige Mammografien helfen, Brustkrebs frühzeitig zu erkennen. Anhand der Röntgenuntersuchung lassen sich aber auch kardiovaskuläre Risikopatientinnen identifizieren. Als zuverlässiger Anhaltspunkt gilt die Verkalkung der Brustarterien.

S3-Leitlinie zu Pankreaskrebs aktualisiert

23.04.2024 Pankreaskarzinom Nachrichten

Die Empfehlungen zur Therapie des Pankreaskarzinoms wurden um zwei Off-Label-Anwendungen erweitert. Und auch im Bereich der Früherkennung gibt es Aktualisierungen.

Fünf Dinge, die im Kindernotfall besser zu unterlassen sind

18.04.2024 Pädiatrische Notfallmedizin Nachrichten

Im Choosing-Wisely-Programm, das für die deutsche Initiative „Klug entscheiden“ Pate gestanden hat, sind erstmals Empfehlungen zum Umgang mit Notfällen von Kindern erschienen. Fünf Dinge gilt es demnach zu vermeiden.

Update Radiologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.