Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2010 Sep;20(9):2067-73.
doi: 10.1007/s00330-010-1786-7. Epub 2010 Apr 21.

Consequences of digital mammography in population-based breast cancer screening: initial changes and long-term impact on referral rates

Adriana M J Bluekens  1 , Nico Karssemeijer, David Beijerinck, Jan J M Deurenberg, Ruben E van Engen, Mireille J M Broeders, Gerard J den Heeten
Affiliations

Consequences of digital mammography in population-based breast cancer screening: initial changes and long-term impact on referral rates

Adriana M J Bluekens et al. Eur Radiol. 2010 Sep.

Abstract

Objectives: To investigate the referral pattern after the transition to full-field digital mammography (FFDM) in a population-based breast cancer screening programme.

Methods: Preceding the nationwide digitalisation of the Dutch screening programme, an FFDM feasibility study was conducted. Detection and referral rates for FFDM and screen-film mammography (SFM) were compared for first and subsequent screens. Furthermore, radiological characteristics of referrals in digital screening were assessed.

Results: A total of 312,414 screening mammograms were performed (43,913 digital and 268,501 conventional), with 4,473 consecutive referrals (966 following FFDM). Initially the FFDM referral rate peaked, and many false-positive results were noted as a consequence of pseudolesions and increased detection of (benign) microcalcifications. A higher overall referral rate was observed in FFDM screening in both first and subsequent examinations (p < .001), with a significant increase in cancer detection (p = .010).

Conclusion: As a result of initial inexperience with digital screening images implementing FFDM in a population-based breast cancer screening programme may lead to a strong, but temporary increase in referral. Dedicated training in digital screening for radiographers and screening radiologists is therefore recommended. Referral rates decrease and stabilise (learning curve effect) at a higher level than in conventional screening, yet with significantly enhanced cancer detection.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Time course of referral in a FFDM and b SFM screening for first (○) and subsequent (♦) screening examinations
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Radiological characteristics of referred lesions in digital mammography (rates per 1,000)
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Results of a referred masses and b referred microcalcifications (rates per 1,000)
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Pseudolesion seen with high contrast resolution in FFDM. a Prior screening mammogram (SFM), b screening mammogram followed by referral (FFDM), c mammogram in subsequent clinical assessment (FFDM)
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Tabar L, Yen M, Vitak B, Chen H, Smith R, Duffy S. Mammography service screening and mortality in breast cancer patients: 20-year follow-up before and after introduction of screening. Lancet. 2003;361:1405–1410. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(03)13143-1. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Otto SJ, Fracheboud J, Looman CW, Broeders MJ, Boer R, Hendriks JH, et al. Initiation of population-based mammography screening in Dutch municipalities and effect on breast-cancer mortality: a systematic review. Lancet. 2003;361:1411–1417. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(03)13132-7. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bick U, Diekmann F. Digital mammography: what do we and what don’t we know? Eur Radiol. 2007;17:1931–1942. doi: 10.1007/s00330-007-0586-1. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Skaane P, Skjennald A. Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: randomised trial in a population-based screening program—Oslo II study. Radiology. 2004;232:197–204. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2321031624. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Rosselli Del Turco M, Mantellini P, Ciatto S, Bonardi R, Martinelli F, Lazzari B, et al. Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparative accuracy in concurrent screening cohorts. AJR. 2007;189:860–866. doi: 10.2214/AJR.07.2303. - DOI - PubMed

MeSH terms