Digital mammography screening: sensitivity of the programme dependent on breast density
- 463 Downloads
To analyse the impact of breast density on the sensitivity of a population-based digital mammography screening programme (SP) as key evaluation parameter.
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.
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 %.
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.
• 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).
KeywordsBreast cancer screening Digital mammography Breast density Interval cancer Population surveillance
American College of Radiology
Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System
Research Ethics Committee
Ductal carcinoma in situ
Sensitivity of the screening programme
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.
- 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.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
- 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
- 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
- 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