Advertisement

European Radiology

, Volume 27, Issue 7, pp 2744–2751 | Cite as

Digital mammography screening: sensitivity of the programme dependent on breast density

  • Stefanie Weigel
  • W. Heindel
  • J. Heidrich
  • H.-W. Hense
  • O. Heidinger
Breast

Abstract

Objectives

To analyse the impact of breast density on the sensitivity of a population-based digital mammography screening programme (SP) as key evaluation parameter.

Methods

25,576 examinations were prospectively stratified from ACR category 1 to 4 for increments of 25 % density during independent double reading. SP was calculated as number of screen-detected cancers divided by the sum of screen-detected plus interval cancers (24-months period) per ACR category, related to the first reading (a), second reading (b) and highest stratification if discrepant (c). Chi-square tests were used for comparison.

Results

Overall sensitivity of the programme was 79.9 %. SP in ACR 4 (a: 50 %, b: 50 %, c: 50 %) was significantly lower than in ACR 3 (a: 72.9 %, b: 79.4 %, c: 80.7 %, p < 0.001), ACR 2 (a: 83.9 %, b: 85.7 %, c: 83.2 %, p < 0.001) and ACR 1 (a: 100 %, b: 88.8 %, c: 100 %; p < 0.001). Frequencies of ACR 4 were a: 5.0 %, b: 4.3 %, c: 6.9 %.

Conclusion

Digital mammography screening with independent double reading leads to a high overall SP. In the small group of women with breast density classified as ACR 4 SP is significantly reduced compared to all other ACR categories.

Key Points

Overall sensitivity of a population-based digital mammography screening programme (SP) was 79.9 %.

In women with ACR 1, 2, or 3, SP ranged between 72.9 %-100 %.

ACR 4 was rare in participants (<7 %) and SP was only 50 %.

SP in ACR 4 differed significantly from ACR 3 (p < 0.001).

Keywords

Breast cancer screening Digital mammography Breast density Interval cancer Population surveillance 

Abbreviations

ACR

American College of Radiology

BI-RADS

Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System

REC

Research Ethics Committee

DCIS

Ductal carcinoma in situ

SP

Sensitivity of the screening programme

Notes

Acknowledgements

The scientific guarantor of this publication are Stefanie Weigel and Hans-Werner Hense. The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article. The authors state that this work has not received any funding. One of the authors (Prof. Hense) has significant statistical expertise. Institutional Review Board approval was not required under national law. Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board. Some of the study subjects have been previously reported in:

Weigel S, Biesheuvel C, Berkemeyer S, Kugel H, Heindel W. Digital mammography screening: how many breast cancers are additionally detected by bilateral ultrasound examination during assessment? Eur Radiol. 2013 Mar; 23(3):684–91.

Weigel S, Berkemeyer S, Girnus R, Sommer A, Lenzen H, Heindel W. Digital mammography screening with photon-counting technique: can a high diagnostic performance be realized at low mean glandular dose? Radiology. 2014 May;271(2):345–55.

Weigel S, Heindel W, Heidrich J, Heidinger O, Hense HW. Reduction of Advanced Breast Cancer Stages at Subsequent Participation in Mammography Screening. Rofo. 2016 Jan;188(1):33–7.

Methodology: retrospective, observational, performed at one institution.

We especially acknowledge the continuous and excellent support of our screening team.

References

  1. 1.
    American College of Radiology (2003) Breast imaging reporting and data system: BI-RADS atlas, 4th edn. American College of Radiology, Reston, VAGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sickles EA, D’Orsi CJ, Bassett LW, et al (2013) ACR BI-RADS® Mammography. In: ACR BI-RADS® Atlas, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. American College of Radiology, RestonGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Melnikow J, Fenton JJ, Whitlock EP et al (2016) Supplemental screening for breast cancer in women with dense breasts: a systematic review for the U.S. preventive services task force. Ann Intern Med 164:268–278CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Holm J, Humphreys K, Li J et al (2015) Risk factors and tumor characteristics of interval cancers by mammographic density. J Clin Oncol 33:1030–1037CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Perry NM, Broeders M, de Wolf C et al (2006) European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis, 4th edn. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Heidinger O, Batzler WU, Krieg V et al (2012) The incidence of interval cancers in the German mammography screening programme: results from the population-based cancer registry in North Rhine-Westphalia. Dtsch Arztebl Int 109:781–787PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Törnberg S, Kemetli L, Ascunce N et al (2010) A pooled analysis of interval cancer rates in six European countries. Eur J Cancer Prev 19:87–93CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wanders J, Holland K, Veldhuis W, et al (2015) Effect of volumetric mammographic density on performance of a breast cancer screening program using full-field digital mammography. In: European Congress of RadiologyGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Holland K, van Zelst J, den Heeten GJ et al (2016) Consistency of breast density categories in serial screening mammograms: a comparison between automated and human assessment. Breast 29:49–54CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Heidinger O, Heidrich J, Batzler WU et al (2015) Digital mammography screening in Germany: impact of age and histological subtype on program sensitivity. Breast 24:191–196CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    McDonald ES, Oustimov A, Weinstein SP et al (2016) Effectiveness of digital breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography: outcomes analysis from 3 years of breast cancer screening. JAMA Oncol 2:737–743CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Freer PE (2015) Mammographic breast density: impact on breast cancer risk and implications for screening. Radiographics 35:302–315CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB et al (2008) Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA 299:2151–2163CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Parris T, Wakefield D, Frimmer H (2013) Real world performance of screening breast ultrasound following enactment of Connecticut Bill 458. Breast J 19:64–70CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kerlikowske K, Zhu W, Tosteson AN et al (2015) Identifying women with dense breasts at high risk for interval cancer: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med 162:673–681CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tagliafico AS, Calabrese M, Mariscotti G, et al (2016) Adjunct screening with tomosynthesis or ultrasound in women with mammography-negative dense breasts: interim report of a prospective comparative trial. J Clin OncolGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Clinical Radiology and Reference Center for MammographyUniversity of MuensterMuensterGermany
  2. 2.Cancer Registry of North Rhine-WestphaliaMuensterGermany
  3. 3.Institute of Epidemiology and Social MedicineUniversity of MuensterMuensterGermany

Personalised recommendations