Breast Cancer: Missed Interval and Screening-detected Cancer at Full-Field Digital Mammography and Screen-Film Mammography— Results from a Retrospective Review

Hoff, Solveig Roth; Abrahamsen, Anne Line; Samset, Jon Helge; Vigeland, Einar; Klepp, Olbjørn; Hofvind, Solveig

doi:10.1148/radiol.12112074

Cited by 93 publications

(77 citation statements)

References 22 publications

(31 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…(9) Hoff et al reported similar screen-detected invasive cancer rates and interval cancer rates but higher screen-detected DCIS with digital compared to film. (16) Studies from Ireland, the Netherlands, and Norway (17–19) have reported increased cancer detection rates with digital while studies from Spain, the United Kingdom, and the U.S. show similar cancer detection rates for digital and film. (2, 8, 17–21)…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Breast Cancer Characteristics Associated With Digital Versus Film-Screen Mammography for Screen-Detected and Interval Cancers

Henderson

Miglioretti

Kerlikowske

et al. 2015

American Journal of Roentgenology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To determine if pathologic findings of screen-detected and interval cancers differ for digital versus film mammography. Materials and Methods This study was institutional review board approved and HIPAA compliant. Using 2003–2011 Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium data, we included 3,021,515 screening mammograms (40.3% digital and 59.7% film) for women ages 40 to 89 years. Cancers were considered screen-detected if diagnosed within 12 months of a positive examination and interval if diagnosed within 12 months of a negative examination. Tumor characteristics for screen-detected and interval cancers were compared for digital versus film mammography using logistic regression models to estimate the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (95%CI), adjusting for age, race/ethnicity, hormone therapy use, screening interval, examination year, and registry while accounting for correlation within facilities using generalized estimating equations. Results Among 15,729 breast cancers, 85.3% were screen-detected and 14.7% were interval. Digital and film mammography had similar rates of screen-detected (4.47 vs. 4.42 per 1000 examinations) and interval cancers (0.73 vs. 0.79 per 1000 examinations) for digital versus film, respectively. In adjusted analyses, interval cancers following a negative digital examination were less likely to be AJCC stage IIB or higher (OR=0.69, 95%CI:0.52–0.93), have positive nodal status (OR=0.78, 95%CI:0.64–0.95), or be estrogen receptor-negative (OR=0.71, 95%CI:0.56–0.91) compared with interval cancers following a negative film examination. Conclusions Screen-detected cancers following digital and film mammography had similar rates of unfavorable tumor characteristics. Interval-detected cancers after a digital examination were less likely to have unfavorable tumor features than those diagnosed after film, but absolute differences were small.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Breast Cancer Characteristics Associated With Digital Versus Film-Screen Mammography for Screen-Detected and Interval Cancers

Henderson

Miglioretti

Kerlikowske

et al. 2015

American Journal of Roentgenology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Only a few studies have included interval-detected (nonscreening) breast cancer rates, because of the relatively small numbers of cases (9,14). Thus, no conclusions have been drawn regarding the potential benefit of FFDM versus SFM for decreasing the incidence of interval breast cancers.…”

Section: Breast Imaging: Transition From Screen-film To Full-field DImentioning

confidence: 99%

Mammographic Performance in a Population-based Screening Program: Before, during, and after the Transition from Screen-Film to Full-Field Digital Mammography

Hofvind¹,

Skaane²,

Elmore³

et al. 2014

Radiology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

MSHS Purpose:To compare performance measures before, during, and after the transition from screen-film mammography (SFM) to full-field digital mammography (FFDM) in a populationbased screening program. Materials and Methods:No institutional review board approval was required for this analysis involving anonymized data for women aged 50-69 years enrolled in the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program during 1996-2010. The x 2 test was used to examine the equality of proportions of recall rates, positive predictive value of recall examinations and of invasive procedures, in addition to rates of screening-detected and interval cancers in women initially screened with SFM and FFDM and for women subsequently screened with SFM after SFM, FFDM after SFM, and FFDM after FFDM. Results:The recall rate was 3.4% (47 091 of 1 391 188) for SFM and 2.9% (13 130 of 446 172) for FFDM (P , .001). The biopsy rate was 1.4% (19 776 of 1 391 188) for SFM and 1.1% (5108 of 446 172) for FFDM (P , .001). The rate of screeningdetected ductal carcinoma in situ was higher (P = .019) while the rate of invasive breast cancer was lower (P , .001) for FFDM compared with those for SFM. The rate of both invasive screening-detected and interval breast cancer remained stable during the transition from SFM to FFDM (when the previous examination was SFM) and after FFDM was firmly established (when the previous examination was FFDM, .25 months after FFDM adoption) (P , .05). The positive predictive value of recall examinations and of invasive procedures increased from 19.3% (4559 of 23 598) and 48.3% (4651 of 9623) to 22.7% (681 of 2995) and 57.5% (689 of 1198), respectively, after adoption of FFDM (P , .001). Conclusion:After the initial transitional phase from SFM to FFDM, population-based screening with FFDM is associated with less harm because of lower recall and biopsy rates and higher positive predictive values after biopsy than screening with SFM.q RSNA, 2014

show abstract

“…These studies indicate that 30-35% of the cancers diagnosed in the two-year interval following a screening, could be detected when reviewing the screening mammogram (i.e. were false negative) [148][149][150]. In comparison, approximately 20% of the screening-detected cancers could also be detected when the previous screening mammogram was reviewed and were false-negative.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Bidrar overdiagnostikk til høye melanomtall?

Kristiansen¹,

Bugge²,

Førde³

2018

Tidsskriftet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Breast Cancer: Missed Interval and Screening-detected Cancer at Full-Field Digital Mammography and Screen-Film Mammography— Results from a Retrospective Review

Cited by 93 publications

References 22 publications

Breast Cancer Characteristics Associated With Digital Versus Film-Screen Mammography for Screen-Detected and Interval Cancers

Breast Cancer Characteristics Associated With Digital Versus Film-Screen Mammography for Screen-Detected and Interval Cancers

Mammographic Performance in a Population-based Screening Program: Before, during, and after the Transition from Screen-Film to Full-Field Digital Mammography

Bidrar overdiagnostikk til høye melanomtall?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About