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
. 2016 Aug 23;115(5):517-24.
doi: 10.1038/bjc.2016.226. Epub 2016 Aug 4.

Digital vs screen-film mammography in population-based breast cancer screening: performance indicators and tumour characteristics of screen-detected and interval cancers

Affiliations

Digital vs screen-film mammography in population-based breast cancer screening: performance indicators and tumour characteristics of screen-detected and interval cancers

Linda de Munck et al. Br J Cancer. .

Abstract

Background: Full-field digital mammography (FFDM) has replaced screen-film mammography (SFM) in most breast cancer screening programs due to technological advantages such as possibilities to adjust contrast, better image quality and transfer capabilities. This study describes the performance indicators during the transition from SFM to FFDM and the characteristics of screen-detected and interval cancers.

Methods: Data of the Dutch breast cancer screening program, region North from 2004 to 2010 were linked to The Netherlands Cancer Registry (N=902 868). Performance indicators and tumour characteristics of screen-detected and interval cancers were compared between FFDM and SFM.

Results: After initial screens, recall rates were 2.1% (SFM) and 3.0% (FFDM; P<0.001). The positive predictive values (PPV) were 25.6% (SFM) and 19.9% (FFDM; P=0.002). Detection rates were similar, as were all performance indicators after subsequent screens. Similar percentages of low-grade ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) were found for SFM and FFDM. Invasive cancers diagnosed after subsequent screens with FFDM were more often of high-grade (P=0.024) and ductal type (P=0.030). The incidence rates of interval cancers were similar for SFM and FFDM after initial (2.69/1000 vs 2.51/1000; P=0.787) and subsequent screens (2.30 vs 2.41; P=0.652), with similar tumour characteristics.

Conclusions: FFDM resulted in similar rates of screen-detected and interval cancers, indicating that FFDM performs as well as SFM in a breast cancer screening program. No signs of an increase in low-grade DCIS (which might connote possible overdiagnosis) were seen. Nonetheless, after initial screening, which accounts for 12% of all screens, FFDM resulted in higher recall rate and lower PPV that requires attention.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Recall and detection rates. (A) Percentage of women recalled after initial screens. (B) Detection rate per 1000 screened women after initial screens. (C) The percentage of women recalled after subsequent screens. (D) Detection rate per 1000 screened women after subsequent screens. Of the women with SFM as initial examination, 92% were aged 50–54 years, compared with 95% of women with FFDM as initial examination. For subsequent examinations, 18 and 17% were aged 50–54 years for SFM and FFDM, respectively; 16% were aged 70–75 years for SFM as well as FFDM.

References

    1. Bluekens AM, Holland R, Karssemeijer N, Broeders MJM, den Heeten GJ (2012) Comparison of digital screening mammography and screen-film mammography in the early detection of clinically relevant cancers: a Multicenter Study. Radiology 265(3): 707–714. - PubMed
    1. Bluekens AM, Karssemeijer N, Beijerinck D, Deurenberg JJ, van Engen RE, Broeders MJM, den Heeten GJ (2010) Consequences of digital mammography in population-based breast cancer screening: initial changes and long-term impact on referral rates. Eur Radiol 20(9): 2067–2073. - PMC - PubMed
    1. D'Orsi CJB, Bassett LW, Berg W, Feig SA, Jackson VP, Kopans DB, Linver MN, Mendelson EB, Moss LJ, Sickles EA (2003) Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: ACR BI-RADS Mammography 4th edition pp 7–175. American College of Radiology: Reston, VA, USA.
    1. Domingo L, Romero A, Belvis F, Sánchez M, Ferrer J, Salas D, Ibáñez J, Vega A, Ferrer F, Laso MS, Maciá F, Castells X, Sala M (2011) Differences in radiological patterns, tumour characteristics and diagnostic precision between digital mammography and screen-film mammography in four breast cancer screening programmes in Spain. Eur Radiol 21(9): 2020–2028. - PubMed
    1. Del Turco MR, Mantellini P, Ciatto S, Bonardi R, Martinelli F, Lazzari B, Houssami N (2007) Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparative accuracy in concurrent screening cohorts. AJR Am J Roentgenol 189(4): 860–866. - PubMed