HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Skaane, P. Articles by Skjennald, A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Skaane, P. Articles by Skjennald, A.

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 Study¹

¹ From the Department of Radiology, Ullevaal University Hospital, University of Oslo, Kirkeveien 166, NO-0407 Oslo, Norway (P.S., A.S.); and Institute of Population-based Cancer Research, The Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway (S.H.). From the 2003 RSNA Annual Meeting. Received August 25, 2006; revision requested October 25; revision received November 14; final version accepted January 3, 2007. Address correspondence to P.S. (e-mail: per.skaane{at}ulleval.no).

Purpose: To prospectively compare performance indicators at screen-film mammography (SFM) and full-field digital mammography (FFDM) in a population-based screening program.

Materials and Methods: The regional ethics committee approved the study; informed consent was obtained from patients. Women aged 45–69 years were assigned to undergo SFM (n = 16 985) or FFDM (n = 6944). Two-view mammograms were interpreted by using independent double reading and a five-point rating scale for probability of cancer. Positive scores were discussed at consensus meetings before decision for recall. The group was followed up for 1.5 years (women aged 45–49 years) and 2.0 years (women aged 50–69 years) to include subsequent cancers with positive scores at baseline interpretation and to estimate interval cancer rate. Recall rates, cancer detection, positive predictive values (PPVs), sensitivity, specificity, tumor characteristics, and discordant interpretations of cancers were compared.

Results: Recall rate was 4.2% at FFDM and 2.5% at SFM (P < .001). Cancer detection rate was 0.59% at FFDM and 0.38% at SFM (P = .02). There was no significant difference in PPVs. Median size of screening-detected invasive cancers was 14 mm at FFDM and 13 mm at SFM. Including cancers dismissed at consensus meetings, overall true-positive rate at baseline reading was 0.63% at FFDM and 0.43% at SFM (P = .04). Sensitivity was 77.4% at FFDM and 61.5% at SFM (P = .07); specificity was 96.5% and 97.9%, respectively (P < .005). Interval cancer rate was 17.4 at FFDM and 23.6 at SFM. The proportion of cancers with discordant double readings was comparable at FFDM and SFM.

Conclusion: FFDM resulted in a significantly higher cancer detection rate than did SFM. The PPVs were comparable for the two imaging modalities.

© RSNA, 2007