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
Comparative Study
. 2015 Sep;205(3):676-84.
doi: 10.2214/AJR.14.13904.

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

Louise M Henderson  1 , Diana L Miglioretti  2 , Karla Kerlikowske  3 , Karen J Wernli  4 , Brian L Sprague  5 , Constance D Lehman  6
Affiliations
Comparative Study

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

Louise M Henderson et al. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015 Sep.

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study was to determine whether pathologic findings of screen-detected and interval cancers differ for digital versus film mammography.

Materials and methods: Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium data from 2003-2011 on 3,021,515 screening mammograms (40.3% digital, 59.7% film) of women 40-89 years old were reviewed. Cancers were considered screen detected if diagnosed within 12 months of an examination with positive findings and interval if diagnosed within 12 months of an examination with negative findings. Tumor characteristics for screen-detected and interval cancers were compared for digital versus film mammography by use of logistic regression models to estimate the odds ratio and 95% CI with adjustment for age, race and ethnicity, hormone therapy use, screening interval, examination year, and registry. Generalized estimating equations were used to account for correlation within facilities.

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 (0.73 vs 0.79 per 1000 examinations) cancers for digital versus film. In adjusted analyses, interval cancers diagnosed after digital examinations with negative findings were less likely to be American Joint Committee on Cancer stage IIB or higher (odds ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.52-0.93), have positive nodal status (odds ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.64-0.95), or be estrogen receptor negative (odds ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.56-0.91) than were interval cancers diagnosed after a film examination with negative findings.

Conclusion: Screen-detected cancers diagnosed after digital and film mammography had similar rates of unfavorable tumor characteristics. Interval-detected cancers diagnosed after a digital examination were less likely to have unfavorable tumor features than those diagnosed after film mammography, but the absolute differences were small.

Keywords: digital mammography; film mammography; interval cancer; screen-detected cancer.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of interest disclosure

Dr. Lehman has been a paid consultant to GE Healthcare, Bayer Healthcare, and Philips Healthcare. All other authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

References

    1. Kirsh VA, Chiarelli AM, Edwards SA, O’Malley FP, Shumak RS, Yaffe MJ, et al. Tumor characteristics associated with mammographic detection of breast cancer in the Ontario breast screening program. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2011;103(12):942–50. - PubMed
    1. Domingo L, Romero A, Belvis F, Sanchez M, Ferrer J, Salas D, et al. Differences in radiological patterns, tumour characteristics and diagnostic precision between digital mammography and screen-film mammography in four breast cancer screening programmes in Spain. European radiology. 2011;21(9):2020–8. - PubMed
    1. Raja MA, Hubbard A, Salman AR. Interval breast cancer: is it a different type of breast cancer? Breast. 2001;10(2):100–8. - PubMed
    1. Vitak B, Olsen KE, Manson JC, Arnesson LG, Stal O. Tumour characteristics and survival in patients with invasive interval breast cancer classified according to mammographic findings at the latest screening: a comparison of true interval and missed interval cancers. European radiology. 1999;9(3):460–9. - PubMed
    1. Duijm LE, Groenewoud JH, de Koning HJ, Coebergh JW, van Beek M, Hooijen MJ, et al. Delayed diagnosis of breast cancer in women recalled for suspicious screening mammography. European journal of cancer. 2009;45(5):774–81. - PubMed

Publication types