nach oben

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

Erschienen in:

01.01.2008 | Review

Full-field digital mammography compared with screen-film mammography in the detection of breast cancer: rays of light through DMIST or more fog?

verfasst von: Jeffrey A. Tice, Mitchell D. Feldman

Erschienen in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment | Ausgabe 2/2008

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Excerpt

Breast cancer is the most common malignancy and second most common cause of cancer death in women in the US [1]. To date, screen-film mammography (SFM) has been considered the gold standard for breast cancer screening and detection [1]. Over 70% of women in the US over the age of 40 have had a mammogram within the past 2 years [2]. Prior research has investigated the efficacy of SFM at reducing mortality from breast cancer [3‐17]. While the interpretation of these results has been hotly debated [18‐25], the consensus in recent systematic reviews and practice guidelines is that SFM reduces breast cancer mortality among women who are 50–75 years of age, and may reduce mortality among women aged 40 years and older [26‐30]. A series of complex models supports the hypothesis that SFM has contributed to a reduction in breast cancer mortality in the US [31]. …

American Cancer Society (2005) Breast cancer facts and figures 2005–2006. American Cancer Society, Atlanta

Swan J, Breen N, Coates RJ, Rimer BK, Lee NC (2003) Progress in cancer screening practices in the United States: results from the 2000 National Health Interview Survey. Cancer 97(6):1528–1540PubMedCrossRef

Alexander FE (1997) The Edinburgh Randomized Trial of Breast Cancer Screening. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1997(22):31–35

Alexander FE, Anderson TJ, Brown HK, Forrest AP, Hepburn W, Kirkpatrick AE, Muir BB, Prescott RJ, Smith A (1999) 14 years of follow-up from the Edinburgh randomised trial of breast-cancer screening. Lancet 353(9168):1903–1908PubMedCrossRef

Andersson I, Aspegren K, Janzon L, Landberg T, Lindholm K, Linell F, Ljungberg O, Ranstam J, Sigfusson B (1988) Mammographic screening and mortality from breast cancer: the Malmo mammographic screening trial. Br Med J 297(6654):943–948

Andersson I, Janzon L (1997) Reduced breast cancer mortality in women under age 50: updated results from the Malmo Mammographic Screening Program. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1997(22):63–67

Bjurstam N, Bjorneld L, Duffy SW, Smith TC, Cahlin E, Erikson O, Lingaas H, Mattsson J, Persson S, Rudenstam CM et al (1997) The Gothenburg Breast Cancer Screening Trial: preliminary results on breast cancer mortality for women aged 39–49. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1997(22):53–55

Bjurstam N, Bjorneld L, Duffy SW, Smith TC, Cahlin E, Eriksson O, Hafstrom LO, Lingaas H, Mattsson J, Persson S et al (1997) The Gothenburg Breast Screening Trial: first results on mortality, incidence, and mode of detection for women ages 39–49 years at randomization. Cancer 80(11):2091–2099PubMedCrossRef

Larsson LG, Andersson I, Bjurstam N, Fagerberg G, Frisell J, Tabar L, Nystrom L (1997) Updated overview of the Swedish Randomized Trials on breast cancer screening with mammography: age group 40–49 at randomization. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1997(22):57–61

10.

Miller AB, To T, Baines CJ, Wall C (1997) The Canadian National Breast Screening Study: update on breast cancer mortality. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1997(22):37–41

11.

Shapiro S (1997) Periodic screening for breast cancer: the HIP Randomized Controlled Trial: health insurance plan. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1997(22):27–30

12.

Tabar L, Fagerberg G, Chen HH, Duffy SW, Gad A (1995) Screening for breast cancer in women aged under 50: mode of detection, incidence, fatality, and histology. J Med Screen 2(2):94–98PubMed

13.

Frisell J, Lidbrink E, Hellstrom L, Rutqvist LE (1997) Followup after 11 years—update of mortality results in the Stockholm mammographic screening trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat 45(3):263–270PubMedCrossRef

14.

Miller AB, Baines CJ, To T, Wall C (1992) Canadian National Breast Screening Study. 2. Breast cancer detection and death rates among women aged 50 to 59 years. CMA J 147(10):1477–1488

15.

Miller AB, To T, Baines CJ, Wall C (2000) Canadian National Breast Screening Study. 2. 13-year results of a randomized trial in women aged 50–59 years. J Natl Cancer Inst 92(18):1490–1499PubMedCrossRef

16.

Miller AB, To T, Baines CJ, Wall C (2002) The Canadian National Breast Screening Study. 1. Breast cancer mortality after 11 to 16 years of follow-up: a randomized screening trial of mammography in women age 40 to 49 years. Ann Intern Med 137(5, part 1):305–312PubMed

17.

Nystrom L, Andersson I, Bjurstam N, Frisell J, Nordenskjold B, Rutqvist LE (2002) Long-term effects of mammography screening: updated overview of the Swedish randomised trials. Lancet 359(9310):909–919PubMedCrossRef

18.

Dean PB (2000) Final comment: the articles by Gotzsche and Olsen are not official Cochrane reviews and lack scientific merit. Lakartidningen 97(25):3106PubMed

19.

Duffy S, Tabar L, Smith RA (2002) The mammographic screening trials: commentary on the recent work by Olsen and Gotzsche. J Surg Oncol 81(4):159–162; discussion 162–156PubMedCrossRef

20.

Duffy SW, Tabar L, Smith RA (2002) The mammographic screening trials: commentary on the recent work by Olsen and Gotzsche. CA Cancer J Clin 52(2):68–71PubMed

21.

Gotzsche PC (2001) Debate on screening for breast cancer is not over. Br Med J 323(7314):693CrossRef

22.

Gotzsche PC (2002) Mammographic screening: no reliable supporting evidence? Lancet 359(9307):706PubMedCrossRef

23.

Gotzsche PC, Olsen O (2000) Is screening for breast cancer with mammography justifiable? Lancet 355(9198):129–134PubMedCrossRef

24.

Miller AB (2003) Is mammography screening for breast cancer really not justifiable? Recent results. Cancer Res 163:115–128; discussion 264–116

25.

Olsen O, Gotzsche PC (2001) Cochrane review on screening for breast cancer with mammography. Lancet 358(9290):1340–1342PubMedCrossRef

26.

ACOG Practice Bulletin (2003) Breast cancer screening. Number 42, April 2003. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 81(3):313–323

27.

Smith RA, Saslow D, Sawyer KA, Burke W, Costanza ME, Evans WP III, Foster RS Jr, Hendrick E, Eyre HJ, Sener S (2003) American Cancer Society guidelines for breast cancer screening: update 2003. CA Cancer J Clin 53(3):141–169PubMedCrossRef

28.

Humphrey LL, Helfand M, Chan BK, Woolf SH (2002) Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 137(5, part 1):347–360PubMed

29.

Elmore JG, Armstrong K, Lehman CD, Fletcher SW (2005) Screening for breast cancer. J Am Med Assoc 293(10):1245–1256CrossRef

30.

Fletcher SW, Elmore JG (2003) Clinical practice: mammographic screening for breast cancer. N Engl J Med 348(17):1672–1680PubMedCrossRef

31.

Berry DA, Cronin KA, Plevritis SK, Fryback DG, Clarke L, Zelen M, Mandelblatt JS, Yakovlev AY, Habbema JD, Feuer EJ (2005) Effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from breast cancer. N Engl J Med 353(17):1784–1792PubMedCrossRef

32.

Carney PA, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC, Kerlikowske K, Rosenberg R, Rutter CM, Geller BM, Abraham LA, Taplin SH, Dignan M et al (2003) Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med 138(3):168–175PubMed

33.

Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, Sickles EA, Ernster V (1996) Effect of age, breast density, and family history on the sensitivity of first screening mammography. J Am Med Assoc 276(1):33–38CrossRef

34.

Mandelson MT, Oestreicher N, Porter PL, White D, Finder CA, Taplin SH, White E (2000) Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 92(13):1081–1087PubMedCrossRef

35.

Rosenberg RD, Hunt WC, Williamson MR, Gilliland FD, Wiest PW, Kelsey CA, Key CR, Linver MN (1998) Effects of age, breast density, ethnicity, and estrogen replacement therapy on screening mammographic sensitivity and cancer stage at diagnosis: review of 183,134 screening mammograms in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Radiology 209(2):511–518PubMed

36.

Astley SM (2004) Computer-aided detection for screening mammography. Acad Radiol 11(10):1139–1143PubMedCrossRef

37.

Pisano ED, Cole EB, Hemminger BM, Yaffe MJ, Aylward SR, Maidment AD, Johnston RE, Williams MB, Niklason LT, Conant EF et al (2000) Image processing algorithms for digital mammography: a pictorial essay. Radiographics 20(5):1479–1491PubMed

38.

Feig SA, Yaffe MJ (1998) Digital mammography. Radiographics 18(4):893–901PubMed

39.

Pisano ED, Yaffe MJ, Hemminger BM, Hendrick RE, Niklason LT, Maidment AD, Kimme-Smith CM, Feig SA, Sickles EA, Braeuning MP (2000) Current status of full-field digital mammography. Acad Radiol 7(4):266–280PubMedCrossRef

40.

Pisano ED, Zong S, Hemminger BM, DeLuca M, Johnston RE, Muller K, Braeuning MP, Pizer SM (1998) Contrast limited adaptive histogram equalization image processing to improve the detection of simulated speculations in dense mammograms. J Digit Imaging 11(4):193–200PubMedCrossRef

41.

Lord SJ, Irwig L, Simes RJ (2006) When is measuring sensitivity and specificity sufficient to evaluate a diagnostic test, and when do we need randomized trials? Ann Intern Med 144(11):850–855PubMed

42.

Lewin JM, D’Orsi CJ, Hendrick RE, Moss LJ, Isaacs PK, Karellas A, Cutter GR (2002) Clinical comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection of breast cancer. Am J Roentgenol 179(3):671–677

43.

Lewin JM, Hendrick RE, D’Orsi CJ, Isaacs PK, Moss LJ, Karellas A, Sisney GA, Kuni CC, Cutter GR (2001) Comparison of full-field digital mammography with screen-film mammography for cancer detection: results of 4,945 paired examinations. Radiology 218(3):873–880PubMed

44.

Pisano ED, Gatsonis CA, Yaffe MJ, Hendrick RE, Tosteson AN, Fryback DG, Bassett LW, Baum JK, Conant EF, Jong RA et al (2005) American College of Radiology Imaging Network digital mammographic imaging screening trial: objectives and methodology. Radiology 236(2):404–412PubMedCrossRef

45.

Skaane P, Skjennald A (2004) Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: randomized trial in a population-based screening program—the Oslo II Study. Radiology 232(1):197–204PubMedCrossRef

46.

Skaane P, Young K, Skjennald A (2003) Population-based mammography screening: comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading—Oslo I study. Radiology 229(3):877–884PubMedCrossRef

47.

Yamada T, Saito M, Ishibashi T, Tsuboi M, Matsuhashi T, Sato A, Saito H, Takahashi S, Onuki K, Ouchi N (2004) Comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography in Japanese population-based screening. Radiat Med 22(6):408–412PubMed

48.

Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, Yaffe M, Baum JK, Acharyya S, Conant EF, Fajardo LL, Bassett L, D’Orsi C et al (2005) Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 353(17):1773–1783PubMedCrossRef

49.

Cole E, Pisano ED, Brown M, Kuzmiak C, Braeuning MP, Kim HH, Jong R, Walsh R (2004) Diagnostic accuracy of Fischer Senoscan Digital Mammography versus screen-film mammography in a diagnostic mammography population. Acad Radiol 11(8):879–886PubMedCrossRef

50.

Fischer U, Baum F, Obenauer S, Luftner-Nagel S, von Heyden D, Vosshenrich R, Grabbe E (2002) Comparative study in patients with microcalcifications: full-field digital mammography vs screen-film mammography. Eur Radiol 12(11):2679–2683PubMed

51.

Venta LA, Hendrick RE, Adler YT, DeLeon P, Mengoni PM, Scharl AM, Comstock CE, Hansen L, Kay N, Coveler A et al (2001) Rates and causes of disagreement in interpretation of full-field digital mammography and film-screen mammography in a diagnostic setting. Am J Roentgenol 176(5):1241–1248

52.

Brettle DS, Ward SC, Parkin GJ, Cowen AR, Sumsion HJ (1994) A clinical comparison between conventional and digital mammography utilizing computed radiography. Br J Radiol 67(797):464–468PubMedCrossRef

53.

Cole EB, Pisano ED, Kistner EO, Muller KE, Brown ME, Feig SA, Jong RA, Maidment AD, Staiger MJ, Kuzmiak CM et al (2003) Diagnostic accuracy of digital mammography in patients with dense breasts who underwent problem-solving mammography: effects of image processing and lesion type. Radiology 226(1):153–160PubMedCrossRef

54.

Cole EB, Pisano ED, Zeng D, Muller K, Aylward SR, Park S, Kuzmiak C, Koomen M, Pavic D, Walsh R et al (2005) The effects of gray scale image processing on digital mammography interpretation performance. Acad Radiol 12(5):585–595PubMedCrossRef

55.

Jarlman O, Borg A, Braw M, Kehler M, Lyttkens K, Samuelsson L (1994) Breast imaging: a comparison of digital luminescence radiographs displayed on TV-monitor and film-screen mammography. Cancer Detect Prev 18(5):375–381PubMed

56.

Jarlman O, Samuelsson L, Braw M (1991) Digital luminescence mammography: early clinical experience. Acta Radiol 32(2):110–113PubMedCrossRef

57.

Kimme-Smith C, Bassett LW, Gold RH, Gormley L (1989) Digital mammography: a comparison of two digitization methods. Invest Radiol 24(11):869–875PubMedCrossRef

58.

Yamada T, Ishibashi T, Sato A, Saito M, Saito H, Matsuhashi T, Takahashi S (2003) Comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography: image contrast and lesion characterization. Radiat Med 21(4):166–171PubMed

59.

Fischmann A, Siegmann KC, Wersebe A, Claussen CD, Muller-Schimpfle M (2005) Comparison of full-field digital mammography and film-screen mammography: image quality and lesion detection. Br J Radiol 78(928):312–315PubMedCrossRef

60.

Becker L, Taves D, McCurdy L, Muscedere G, Karlik S, Ward S (2001) Stereotactic core biopsy of breast microcalcifications: comparison of film versus digital mammography, both using an add-on unit. Am J Roentgenol 177(6):1451–1457

61.

Ciatto S, Brancato B, Baglioni R, Turci M (2006) A methodology to evaluate differential costs of full field digital as compared to conventional screen film mammography in a clinical setting. Eur J Radiol 57(1):69–75PubMedCrossRef

62.

Porter PL, El-Bastawissi AY, Mandelson MT, Lin MG, Khalid N, Watney EA, Cousens L, White D, Taplin S, White E (1999) Breast tumor characteristics as predictors of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 91(23):2020–2028PubMedCrossRef

63.

American College of Radiology (2003) Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS), 4th edn. Reston, VA

Titel: Full-field digital mammography compared with screen-film mammography in the detection of breast cancer: rays of light through DMIST or more fog?
verfasst von: Jeffrey A. Tice
Mitchell D. Feldman
Publikationsdatum: 01.01.2008
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment / Ausgabe 2/2008
Print ISSN: 0167-6806
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-7217
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-007-9545-4

Springer Medizin

Full-field digital mammography compared with screen-film mammography in the detection of breast cancer: rays of light through DMIST or more fog?

Excerpt

Neu im Fachgebiet Onkologie

Adjuvante Immuntherapie verlängert Leben bei RCC

Alectinib verbessert krankheitsfreies Überleben bei ALK-positivem NSCLC

Bei Senioren mit Prostatakarzinom auf Anämie achten!

ICI-Therapie in der Schwangerschaft wird gut toleriert

Update Onkologie

Springer Medizin

Excerpt

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2008

Stromal mast cells in invasive breast cancer are a marker of favourable prognosis: a study of 4,444 cases

Recognition and management of treatment-related side effects for breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant endocrine therapy

Unequal risks for breast cancer associated with different hormone replacement therapies: results from the E3N cohort study

Exploring the two-gene ratio in breast cancer—independent roles for HOXB13 and IL17BR in prediction of clinical outcome

SUMO and estrogen receptors in breast cancer

EZH2 regulates the transcription of estrogen-responsive genes through association with REA, an estrogen receptor corepressor

Neu im Fachgebiet Onkologie

Adjuvante Immuntherapie verlängert Leben bei RCC

Alectinib verbessert krankheitsfreies Überleben bei ALK-positivem NSCLC

Bei Senioren mit Prostatakarzinom auf Anämie achten!

ICI-Therapie in der Schwangerschaft wird gut toleriert

Update Onkologie