Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Digital Mammography in European Population-Based Screening Programs

  • Chapter
Digital Mammography

Part of the book series: Medical Radiology ((Med Radiol Diagn Imaging))

Key Points

Full-field digital mammography (FFDM) offers several benefits when compared with screen-film mammography (SFM) in breast cancer screening, such as: Elimination of technical failure recalls; simplified archival, retrieval, and transmission of images; reduction of average glandular dose; higher patient work-flow; improved diagnostic accuracy, especially in women with dense breast parenchyma due to higher contrast resolution; implementation of advanced technologies including computer-aided detection (CAD) and tomos-ynthesis; and the potential for telemammography and teleconsultation. Several European studies comparing FFDM and SFM in population-based breast cancer screening programs have demonstrated a higher cancer detection rate at FFDM approaching borderline significance in some studies, and showing statistically significant higher detection rate in women presenting with Ductal carcinoma in-situ (DCIS) or clustered microcalci-fications. The higher cancer detection rate is, however, achieved at the cost of a higher recall rate. Overall, there has been no significant difference in the positive predictive value between FFDM and SFM. The huge challenge of interobserver variability for interpretation in mammography screening may have prevented the advantages from being observed in several studies, and will also, in the future, be a challenge for trials comparing the two imaging techniques.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Andersson I, Aspegren K, Janzon L, et al (1988) Mammographic screening and mortality from breast cancer: the Malmo mammographic screening trial. BMJ 297:943–948

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Andersson I, Ikeda DM, Zackrisson S, et al (2008) Breast tomo-synthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of breast cancer visibility and BIRADS classification in a population of cancers with subtle mammographic findings. Eur Radiol 18:2817–2825

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Beam CA, Layde PM, Sullivan DC (1996) Variability in the interpretation of screening mammograms by US radiologists. Arch Intern Med 156:209–213

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Berg WA, Campassi C, Langenberg P, et al (2000) Breast imaging reporting and data system: inter- and intraobserver variability in feature analysis and final assessment. Am J Roentgenol 174:1769–1777

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Berns EA, Hendrick RE, Solari M, et al (2006) Digital and screen-film mammography: comparison of image acquisition and interpretation times. Am J Roentgenol 187:38–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bick U, Diekmann F (2007) Digital mammography: what do we and what don't we know? Eur Radiol 17:1931–1942

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bick U, Diekmann F, Fallenberg EM (2008) Workflow in digital screening mammography. Radiologe 48:335–344 (in German)

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bjurstam N, Bjorneld L, Warwick J, et al (2003) The Gothenburg breast screening trial. Cancer 97:2387–2396

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bjurstam N, Hofvind S, Pedersen K, et al (2006) Full-field digital mammography screening in the population-based screening program in North-Norway: preliminary results Radiology 241(P):392 (abstr.)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burnside ES, Park JM, Fine JP, et al (2005) The use of batch reading to improve the performance of screening mam-mography. Am J Roentgenol 185:790–796

    Google Scholar 

  • Ciatto S, Ambrogetti D, Risso G, et al (2005) The role of arbitration of discordant reports at double reading of screening mammograms. J Med Screen 12:125–127

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Collette HJA, Day NE, Rombach JJ, et al (1984) Evaluation of screening for breast cancer in a non-randomized study (the DOM project) by means of a case-control study. Lancet I:1224–1226

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornford EJ, Evans AJ, James JJ, et al (2005) The pathological and radiological features of screen-detected breast cancers diagnosed following arbitration of discordant double reading opinions. Clin Radiol 60:1182–1187

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Del Turco MR, Mantellini P, Ciatto S, et al (2007) Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparative accuracy in concurrent screening cohorts. Am J Roentgenol 189:860–866

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diekmann F, Bick U (2007) Tomosynthesis and contrast-enhanced digital mammography: recent advances in digital mammography. Eur Radiol 17:3086–3092

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dinnes J, Moss S, Melia J, et al (2001) Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of double reading of mammograms in breast cancer screening: findings of a systematic review. Breast 10:455–463

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Duffy SW, Tabar L, Chen HH, et al (2002) The impact of organized mammography service screening on breast cancer mortality in seven Swedish counties. Cancer 95:458–469

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Elmore JG, Wells CK, Lee CH, et al (1994) Variability in radiologists” interpretations of mammograms. N Engl J Med 331:1493–1499

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Frisell J, Eklund G, Hellstrom L, et al (1991) Randomized study of mammography screening — preliminary report on mortality in the Stockholm trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat 18:49–56

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gabe R, Tryggvadottir L, Sigfusson B, et al (2007) A case-control study to estimate the impact of the Icelandic population-based mammography screening program on breast cancer death. Acta Radiol 48:948–955

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gershon-Cohen J, Hermel MB, Berger SM (1961) Detection of breast cancer by periodic X-ray examinations: a five-year survey. JAMA 176:1114–1116

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ghate S V, Soo MS, Baker JA, et al (2005) Comparison of recall and cancer detection rates for immediate versus batch interpretations of screening mammograms. Radiology 233:31–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert FJ, Astley SM, Gillan MGC, et al (2008) Single reading with computer-aided detection for screening mammogra-phy. N Engl J Med 359:1675–1684

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gold RH, Bassett LW, Widoff BE (1990) Highlights from the history of mammography. RadioGraphics 10:1111–1131

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gur D (2005) Technology and practice assessment: in search of a “desirable” statement. Radiology 234:659–660.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hambly N, Phelan N, Hargaden G, et al (2008a) Impact of digital mammography in breast cancer screening: initial experience in a national breast screening program. In Krupinski EA: IWDM 2008. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 55–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Hambly N, Hargaden GC, Phelan N, et al (2008b) Comparison of full field digital mammography and screen film mam-mography in breast cancer screening: a retrospective review in the Irish National Breast Screening Program. Radiology 249(P):325 (abstr.)

    Google Scholar 

  • Haygood TM, Wang J, Atkinson EN, et al (2009) Timed effi-ciency of interpretation of digital and film-screen screening mammograms. Am J Roentgenol 192:216–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heddson B, Roennow K, Olsson M, et al (2007) Digital versus screen-film mammography: a retrospective comparison in a population-based screening program. Eur J Radiol 64:419–425

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hofvind S, Geller BM, Rosenberg R, Skaane P: Screening-detected breast cancers: Discordant independent double reading in a population-based screening program. Radiology (in press)

    Google Scholar 

  • IARC Handbooks of Cancer Prevention (2002) Volume 7: breast cancer screening. Chapter 3: use of breast cancer screening. IARC Press, Lyon, pp 47–86

    Google Scholar 

  • Irwig L, Houssami N, Armstrong B, et al (2006) Evaluating new screening tests for breast cancer. BMJ 332:678–679

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Juel I, Hofvind SS, Hoff SR, et al (2008) Screen-film mammogra-phy versus full-field digital mammography in a population-based mammography screening program: the Sogn and Fjordane study Radiology 249(P):325–326 (abstr.)

    Google Scholar 

  • Karssemeijer N, Beijerinck D, Visser R, et al (2008) Effect of introduction of digital mammography with CAD in a population based screening program. Eur Radiol Suppl. 1:151–152 (abstr.)

    Google Scholar 

  • Keen JD (2006) Digital and film mammography. N Engl J Med 354:766

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kopans DB (2008) DMIST results: technologic or observer variability? Radiology 248:703–704

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lewin JM, Hendrick RE, D'Orsi CJ, et al (2001) Comparison of full-field digital mammography with screen-film mam-mography for cancer detection: results of 4,945 paired examinations. Radiology 218:873–880

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lewin JM, D'Orsi CJ, Hendrick RE, et al (2002) Clinical comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection of breast cancer. Am J Roentgenol 179:671–677

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewin J (2006) Clinical trials in full-field digital mammogra-phy. Semin Breast Dis 9:87–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lundgren B, Jakobsson S (1976) Single view mammography. A simple and efficient approach to breast cancer screening. Cancer 38:1124–1129

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Matcham NJ, Ridley NTF, Taylor SJ, et al (2004) Breast screening: the use of consensus opinion for all recalls. Breast 13:184–187

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Moral Aldaz A, Aupee M, Batal-Steil S, et al (1994) Cancer screening in the European Union. Eur J Cancer 30A:860–872

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nystrom L, Andersson I, Bjurstam N, et al (2002) Long-term effects of mammography screening: updated overview of the Swedish randomised trials. Lancet 359:909–919

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Olsen AH, Njor SH, Vejborg I, et al (2005) Breast cancer mortality in Copenhagen after introduction of mammography screening: cohort study. BMJ 330:220–225

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Palli D, Del Turco MR, Buiatti E, et al (1986) A case-control study of the efficacy of a non-randomized breast cancer screening program in Florence (Italy). Int J Cancer 38:501–504

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C, Tornberg S, Holland R, von Karsa L (2006) (eds) European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis, 4th edn. European Communities. European Commission, Luxembourg

    Google Scholar 

  • Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, et al (2005) Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 353:1773–1783

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pisano ED, Hendrick RE, Yaffe MJ, et al (2008) Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST. Radiology 246:376–383

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts MM, Alexander FE, Anderson TJ, et al (1990) Edinburgh trial of screening for breast cancer: mortality at seven years. Lancet 335:241–246

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sala M, Commas M, Macia F, et al (2009) Implementation of digital mammography in a population-based breast cancer screening program: Effect of screening round on recall rate and cancer detection 252:31–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro S, Strax P, Venet L (1971) Periodic breast cancer screening in reducing mortality from breast cancer. JAMA 215:1777–1785

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw CM, Flanagan FL, Fenlon HM, et al (2009) Consensus review of Discordant findings maximizes cancer detection rate in double-reader screening mammography: Irish National Breast Screening Program experience. Radiology 250:354–362.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Skaane P, Young K, Skjennald A (2003) Population-based mam-mography screening: comparison of screen-film mammog-raphy and full-field digital mammography using soft-copy reading: the Oslo I study. Radiology 229:877–884

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Skaane P, Skjennald A (2004) Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: randomized trial in a population-based screening program — The Oslo II study. Radiology 232:197–204

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Skaane P, Skjennald A, Young K, et al (2005) Follow-up and final results of the Oslo I study comparing screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading. Acta Radiol 46:679–689

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Skaane P, Niklason L (2006) Receiver operating characteristic analysis: a proper measurement for performance in breast cancer screening? Am J Roentgenol 186:579–580

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skaane P, Hofvind S, Skjennald A (2007) 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 244:708–717

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Skaane P, Diekmann F, Balleyguier C, et al (2008) Observer variability in screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading. Eur Radiol 18:1134–1143

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Skaane P (2009) Studies comparing screen-film mammogra-phy and full-field digital mammography in breast cancer screening: updated review. Acta Radiol 50:3–14

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tabar L, Fagerberg CJG, Gad A, et al (1985) Reduction in mortality from breast cancer after mass screening with mam-mography. Lancet I:829–832

    Google Scholar 

  • Verbeek ALM, Hendriks JHCL, Holland R, et al (1984) Reduction of breast cancer mortality through mass screening with modern mammography: first results of the Nijmegen project, 1975–1981. Lancet I:1222–1224

    Google Scholar 

  • Vigeland E, Klaasen H, Klingen TA, et al (2008) Full-field digital mammography compared to screen film mammogra-phy in the prevalent round of a population-based screening programme: the Vestfold County study. Eur Radiol 18:183–191

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vinnicombe S, Pinto Pereira SM, McCormack VA, et al (2009) Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparison within the UK breast screening program and systematic review of published data. Radiology 251:347–358

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • de Waard F, Kirkpatrick A, Perry NM, et al (1994) Breast cancer screening in the framework of the Europe against cancer programme. Eur J Cancer Prev 3(Suppl. 1):3–5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Ullevaal University Hospital, Kirkeveien 166, Oslo, NO, 0407, Norway

    Per Skaane

Authors
  1. Per Skaane
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Charité Campus Mitte Institut för Radiologie, Charitéplatz 1, Berlin, 10117, Germany

    U. Bick

  2. Charité Klinik för Strahlenheilkunde, Augustenburger Platz 1, Berlin, 13353, Germany

    F. Diekmann

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Skaane, P. (2010). Digital Mammography in European Population-Based Screening Programs. In: Bick, U., Diekmann, F. (eds) Digital Mammography. Medical Radiology. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78450-0_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78450-0_10

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-78449-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-78450-0

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation