| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Breast Imaging |
1 From the Department of Radiology, Breast Imaging Center, Ullevaal University Hospital, Kirkeveien 166, N-0407 Oslo, Norway. From the 2002 RSNA scientific assembly. Received October 7, 2003; revision requested November 3; revision received December 7; accepted January 2, 2004. Address correspondence to P.S. (e-mail: per.skaane@ulleval.no).
PURPOSE: To prospectively compare cancer detection rates, recall rates, and positive predictive values at screen-film mammography (SFM) with those at full-field digital mammography (FFDM) with soft-copy reading in a population-based screening program in Norway.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Of 43,429 women invited, 25,263 women aged 45–69 years attended the screening program and were randomized, with adjustments for age and area of residence, to undergo SFM or FFDM. Two standard views of each breast were acquired. Independent double reading was performed with use of a five-point rating scale for probability of cancer. Recall rates, positive predictive values, and cancer detection rates were compared for two age groups (45–49 and 50–69 years) by using the 
2 test.
RESULTS: Overall, 73 cancers in 17,911 women were detected at SFM (detection rate, 0.41%), compared with 41 cancers in 6,997 women at FFDM (detection rate, 0.59%; P = .06). In the group aged 50–69 years, 56 cancers in 10,304 women were detected at SFM (detection rate, 0.54%), compared with 33 cancers in 3,985 at FFDM (detection rate, 0.83%); the difference in cancer detection rates approached significance (P = .053). In the group aged 45–49 years, 17 cancers in 7,607 women were detected at SFM (detection rate, 0.22%), compared with eight cancers in 3,012 at FFDM (detection rate, 0.27%). Recall rates in both age groups were significantly higher at FFDM than at SFM (P < .05), but positive predictive value was not significantly different.
CONCLUSION: FFDM allowed a higher cancer detection rate than did SFM in the group aged 50–69, although the difference did not reach statistical significance. The detection rate was nearly equal for the two modalities in the group aged 45–49. SFM and FFDM with soft-copy reading are comparable techniques for population-based screening mammography programs.
© RSNA, 2004
Index terms: Breast neoplasms, radiography, 00.32, 00.81 • Breast radiography, comparative studies, 00.112, 00.1215 • Cancer screening • Radiography, digital, 00.1215
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  C. Van Ongeval, A. Van Steen, and H. Bosmans Teaching syllabus for radiological aspects of breast cancer screening with digital mammography Radiat Prot Dosimetry, March 1, 2008; 129(1-3): 191 - 194. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 E. D. Pisano, R. E. Hendrick, M. Yaffe, E. F. Conant, and C. Gatsonis Should Breast Imaging Practices Convert to Digital Mammography? A Response from Members of the DMIST Executive Committee Radiology, October 1, 2007; 245(1): 12 - 13. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. R. Del Turco, P. Mantellini, S. Ciatto, R. Bonardi, F. Martinelli, B. Lazzari, and N. Houssami Full-Field Digital Versus Screen-Film Mammography: Comparative Accuracy in Concurrent Screening Cohorts Am. J. Roentgenol., October 1, 2007; 189(4): 860 - 866. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Skaane, S. Hofvind, and A. Skjennald Randomized Trial of Screen-Film versus Full-Field Digital Mammography with Soft-Copy Reading in Population-based Screening Program: Follow-up and Final Results of Oslo II Study Radiology, September 1, 2007; 244(3): 708 - 717. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Y. Jiang, D. L. Miglioretti, C. E. Metz, and R. A. Schmidt Breast Cancer Detection Rate: Designing Imaging Trials to Demonstrate Improvements Radiology, May 1, 2007; 243(2): 360 - 367. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Skaane, A. Kshirsagar, S. Stapleton, K. Young, and R. A. Castellino Effect of Computer-Aided Detection on Independent Double Reading of Paired Screen-Film and Full-Field Digital Screening Mammograms Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2007; 188(2): 377 - 384. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. A. J. Roelofs, N. Karssemeijer, N. Wedekind, C. Beck, S. van Woudenberg, P. R. Snoeren, J. H. C. L. Hendriks, M. Rosselli del Turco, N. Bjurstam, H. Junkermann, et al. Importance of Comparison of Current and Prior Mammograms in Breast Cancer Screening Radiology, January 1, 2007; 242(1): 70 - 77. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. A. Berns, R. E. Hendrick, M. Solari, L. Barke, D. Reddy, J. Wolfman, L. Segal, P. DeLeon, S. Benjamin, and L. Willis Digital and screen-film mammography: comparison of image acquisition and interpretation times. Am. J. Roentgenol., July 1, 2006; 187(1): 38 - 41. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. H. Kim, E. D. Pisano, E. B. Cole, M. R. Jiroutek, K. E. Muller, Y. Zheng, C. M. Kuzmiak, and M. A. Koomen Comparison of calcification specificity in digital mammography using soft-copy display versus screen-film mammography. Am. J. Roentgenol., July 1, 2006; 187(1): 47 - 50. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. Bosmans, A.-K. Carton, F. Rogge, F. Zanca, J. Jacobs, C. Van Ongeval, K. Nijs, A. Van Steen, and G. Marchal Image quality measurements and metrics in full field digital mammography: an overview Radiat Prot Dosimetry, December 1, 2005; 117(1-3): 120 - 130. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. V. Ongeval, H. Bosmans, and A. Van Steen Current challenges of full field digital mammography Radiat Prot Dosimetry, December 1, 2005; 117(1-3): 148 - 153. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. D. Dershaw Film or digital mammographic screening? N. Engl. J. Med., October 27, 2005; 353(17): 1846 - 1847. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. D. Pisano, C. Gatsonis, E. Hendrick, M. Yaffe, J. K. Baum, S. Acharyya, E. F. Conant, L. L. Fajardo, L. Bassett, C. D'Orsi, et al. Diagnostic Performance of Digital versus Film Mammography for Breast-Cancer Screening N. Engl. J. Med., October 27, 2005; 353(17): 1773 - 1783. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Skaane, C. Balleyguier, F. Diekmann, S. Diekmann, J.-C. Piguet, K. Young, and L. T. Niklason Breast Lesion Detection and Classification: Comparison of Screen-Film Mammography and Full-Field Digital Mammography with Soft-copy Reading--Observer Performance Study Radiology, October 1, 2005; 237(1): 37 - 44. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. D. Pisano, C. A. Gatsonis, M. J. Yaffe, R. E. Hendrick, A. N. A. Tosteson, D. G. Fryback, L. W. Bassett, J. K. Baum, E. F. Conant, R. A. Jong, et al. American College of Radiology Imaging Network Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial: Objectives and Methodology Radiology, August 1, 2005; 236(2): 404 - 412. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Koomen, E. D. Pisano, C. Kuzmiak, D. Pavic, and R. McLelland Future Directions in Breast Imaging J. Clin. Oncol., March 10, 2005; 23(8): 1674 - 1677. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. G. Elmore, K. Armstrong, C. D. Lehman, and S. W. Fletcher Screening for Breast Cancer JAMA, March 9, 2005; 293(10): 1245 - 1256. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Gur Technology and Practice Assessment: In Search of a "Desirable" Statement Radiology, March 1, 2005; 234(3): 659 - 660. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| RADIOLOGY | RADIOGRAPHICS | RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE |
