Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Full-field digital mammography compared with screen-film mammography in the detection of breast cancer: rays of light through DMIST or more fog?

  • Review
  • Published:
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. American Cancer Society (2005) Breast cancer facts and figures 2005–2006. American Cancer Society, Atlanta

    Google Scholar 

  2. Swan J, Breen N, Coates RJ, Rimer BK, Lee NC (2003) Progress in cancer screening practices in the United States: results from the 2000 National Health Interview Survey. Cancer 97(6):1528–1540

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Alexander FE (1997) The Edinburgh Randomized Trial of Breast Cancer Screening. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1997(22):31–35

    Google Scholar 

  4. Alexander FE, Anderson TJ, Brown HK, Forrest AP, Hepburn W, Kirkpatrick AE, Muir BB, Prescott RJ, Smith A (1999) 14 years of follow-up from the Edinburgh randomised trial of breast-cancer screening. Lancet 353(9168):1903–1908

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Andersson I, Aspegren K, Janzon L, Landberg T, Lindholm K, Linell F, Ljungberg O, Ranstam J, Sigfusson B (1988) Mammographic screening and mortality from breast cancer: the Malmo mammographic screening trial. Br Med J 297(6654):943–948

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Andersson I, Janzon L (1997) Reduced breast cancer mortality in women under age 50: updated results from the Malmo Mammographic Screening Program. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1997(22):63–67

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bjurstam N, Bjorneld L, Duffy SW, Smith TC, Cahlin E, Erikson O, Lingaas H, Mattsson J, Persson S, Rudenstam CM et al (1997) The Gothenburg Breast Cancer Screening Trial: preliminary results on breast cancer mortality for women aged 39–49. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1997(22):53–55

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bjurstam N, Bjorneld L, Duffy SW, Smith TC, Cahlin E, Eriksson O, Hafstrom LO, Lingaas H, Mattsson J, Persson S et al (1997) The Gothenburg Breast Screening Trial: first results on mortality, incidence, and mode of detection for women ages 39–49 years at randomization. Cancer 80(11):2091–2099

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Larsson LG, Andersson I, Bjurstam N, Fagerberg G, Frisell J, Tabar L, Nystrom L (1997) Updated overview of the Swedish Randomized Trials on breast cancer screening with mammography: age group 40–49 at randomization. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1997(22):57–61

    Google Scholar 

  10. Miller AB, To T, Baines CJ, Wall C (1997) The Canadian National Breast Screening Study: update on breast cancer mortality. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1997(22):37–41

    Google Scholar 

  11. Shapiro S (1997) Periodic screening for breast cancer: the HIP Randomized Controlled Trial: health insurance plan. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1997(22):27–30

    Google Scholar 

  12. Tabar L, Fagerberg G, Chen HH, Duffy SW, Gad A (1995) Screening for breast cancer in women aged under 50: mode of detection, incidence, fatality, and histology. J Med Screen 2(2):94–98

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Frisell J, Lidbrink E, Hellstrom L, Rutqvist LE (1997) Followup after 11 years—update of mortality results in the Stockholm mammographic screening trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat 45(3):263–270

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Miller AB, Baines CJ, To T, Wall C (1992) Canadian National Breast Screening Study. 2. Breast cancer detection and death rates among women aged 50 to 59 years. CMA J 147(10):1477–1488

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Miller AB, To T, Baines CJ, Wall C (2000) Canadian National Breast Screening Study. 2. 13-year results of a randomized trial in women aged 50–59 years. J Natl Cancer Inst 92(18):1490–1499

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Miller AB, To T, Baines CJ, Wall C (2002) The Canadian National Breast Screening Study. 1. Breast cancer mortality after 11 to 16 years of follow-up: a randomized screening trial of mammography in women age 40 to 49 years. Ann Intern Med 137(5, part 1):305–312

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Nystrom L, Andersson I, Bjurstam N, Frisell J, Nordenskjold B, Rutqvist LE (2002) Long-term effects of mammography screening: updated overview of the Swedish randomised trials. Lancet 359(9310):909–919

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Dean PB (2000) Final comment: the articles by Gotzsche and Olsen are not official Cochrane reviews and lack scientific merit. Lakartidningen 97(25):3106

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Duffy S, Tabar L, Smith RA (2002) The mammographic screening trials: commentary on the recent work by Olsen and Gotzsche. J Surg Oncol 81(4):159–162; discussion 162–156

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Duffy SW, Tabar L, Smith RA (2002) The mammographic screening trials: commentary on the recent work by Olsen and Gotzsche. CA Cancer J Clin 52(2):68–71

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Gotzsche PC (2001) Debate on screening for breast cancer is not over. Br Med J 323(7314):693

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Gotzsche PC (2002) Mammographic screening: no reliable supporting evidence? Lancet 359(9307):706

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Gotzsche PC, Olsen O (2000) Is screening for breast cancer with mammography justifiable? Lancet 355(9198):129–134

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Miller AB (2003) Is mammography screening for breast cancer really not justifiable? Recent results. Cancer Res 163:115–128; discussion 264–116

    Google Scholar 

  25. Olsen O, Gotzsche PC (2001) Cochrane review on screening for breast cancer with mammography. Lancet 358(9290):1340–1342

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. ACOG Practice Bulletin (2003) Breast cancer screening. Number 42, April 2003. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 81(3):313–323

    Google Scholar 

  27. Smith RA, Saslow D, Sawyer KA, Burke W, Costanza ME, Evans WP III, Foster RS Jr, Hendrick E, Eyre HJ, Sener S (2003) American Cancer Society guidelines for breast cancer screening: update 2003. CA Cancer J Clin 53(3):141–169

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Humphrey LL, Helfand M, Chan BK, Woolf SH (2002) Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 137(5, part 1):347–360

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Elmore JG, Armstrong K, Lehman CD, Fletcher SW (2005) Screening for breast cancer. J Am Med Assoc 293(10):1245–1256

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Fletcher SW, Elmore JG (2003) Clinical practice: mammographic screening for breast cancer. N Engl J Med 348(17):1672–1680

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Berry DA, Cronin KA, Plevritis SK, Fryback DG, Clarke L, Zelen M, Mandelblatt JS, Yakovlev AY, Habbema JD, Feuer EJ (2005) Effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from breast cancer. N Engl J Med 353(17):1784–1792

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Carney PA, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC, Kerlikowske K, Rosenberg R, Rutter CM, Geller BM, Abraham LA, Taplin SH, Dignan M et al (2003) Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med 138(3):168–175

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, Sickles EA, Ernster V (1996) Effect of age, breast density, and family history on the sensitivity of first screening mammography. J Am Med Assoc 276(1):33–38

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Mandelson MT, Oestreicher N, Porter PL, White D, Finder CA, Taplin SH, White E (2000) Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 92(13):1081–1087

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Rosenberg RD, Hunt WC, Williamson MR, Gilliland FD, Wiest PW, Kelsey CA, Key CR, Linver MN (1998) Effects of age, breast density, ethnicity, and estrogen replacement therapy on screening mammographic sensitivity and cancer stage at diagnosis: review of 183,134 screening mammograms in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Radiology 209(2):511–518

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Astley SM (2004) Computer-aided detection for screening mammography. Acad Radiol 11(10):1139–1143

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Pisano ED, Cole EB, Hemminger BM, Yaffe MJ, Aylward SR, Maidment AD, Johnston RE, Williams MB, Niklason LT, Conant EF et al (2000) Image processing algorithms for digital mammography: a pictorial essay. Radiographics 20(5):1479–1491

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Feig SA, Yaffe MJ (1998) Digital mammography. Radiographics 18(4):893–901

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Pisano ED, Yaffe MJ, Hemminger BM, Hendrick RE, Niklason LT, Maidment AD, Kimme-Smith CM, Feig SA, Sickles EA, Braeuning MP (2000) Current status of full-field digital mammography. Acad Radiol 7(4):266–280

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Pisano ED, Zong S, Hemminger BM, DeLuca M, Johnston RE, Muller K, Braeuning MP, Pizer SM (1998) Contrast limited adaptive histogram equalization image processing to improve the detection of simulated speculations in dense mammograms. J Digit Imaging 11(4):193–200

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Lord SJ, Irwig L, Simes RJ (2006) When is measuring sensitivity and specificity sufficient to evaluate a diagnostic test, and when do we need randomized trials? Ann Intern Med 144(11):850–855

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Lewin JM, D’Orsi CJ, Hendrick RE, Moss LJ, Isaacs PK, Karellas A, Cutter GR (2002) Clinical comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection of breast cancer. Am J Roentgenol 179(3):671–677

    Google Scholar 

  43. Lewin JM, Hendrick RE, D’Orsi CJ, Isaacs PK, Moss LJ, Karellas A, Sisney GA, Kuni CC, Cutter GR (2001) Comparison of full-field digital mammography with screen-film mammography for cancer detection: results of 4,945 paired examinations. Radiology 218(3):873–880

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Pisano ED, Gatsonis CA, Yaffe MJ, Hendrick RE, Tosteson AN, Fryback DG, Bassett LW, Baum JK, Conant EF, Jong RA et al (2005) American College of Radiology Imaging Network digital mammographic imaging screening trial: objectives and methodology. Radiology 236(2):404–412

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. 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(1):197–204

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Skaane P, Young K, Skjennald A (2003) Population-based mammography screening: comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading—Oslo I study. Radiology 229(3):877–884

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Yamada T, Saito M, Ishibashi T, Tsuboi M, Matsuhashi T, Sato A, Saito H, Takahashi S, Onuki K, Ouchi N (2004) Comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography in Japanese population-based screening. Radiat Med 22(6):408–412

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, Yaffe M, Baum JK, Acharyya S, Conant EF, Fajardo LL, Bassett L, D’Orsi C et al (2005) Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 353(17):1773–1783

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Cole E, Pisano ED, Brown M, Kuzmiak C, Braeuning MP, Kim HH, Jong R, Walsh R (2004) Diagnostic accuracy of Fischer Senoscan Digital Mammography versus screen-film mammography in a diagnostic mammography population. Acad Radiol 11(8):879–886

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Fischer U, Baum F, Obenauer S, Luftner-Nagel S, von Heyden D, Vosshenrich R, Grabbe E (2002) Comparative study in patients with microcalcifications: full-field digital mammography vs screen-film mammography. Eur Radiol 12(11):2679–2683

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Venta LA, Hendrick RE, Adler YT, DeLeon P, Mengoni PM, Scharl AM, Comstock CE, Hansen L, Kay N, Coveler A et al (2001) Rates and causes of disagreement in interpretation of full-field digital mammography and film-screen mammography in a diagnostic setting. Am J Roentgenol 176(5):1241–1248

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Brettle DS, Ward SC, Parkin GJ, Cowen AR, Sumsion HJ (1994) A clinical comparison between conventional and digital mammography utilizing computed radiography. Br J Radiol 67(797):464–468

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Cole EB, Pisano ED, Kistner EO, Muller KE, Brown ME, Feig SA, Jong RA, Maidment AD, Staiger MJ, Kuzmiak CM et al (2003) Diagnostic accuracy of digital mammography in patients with dense breasts who underwent problem-solving mammography: effects of image processing and lesion type. Radiology 226(1):153–160

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Cole EB, Pisano ED, Zeng D, Muller K, Aylward SR, Park S, Kuzmiak C, Koomen M, Pavic D, Walsh R et al (2005) The effects of gray scale image processing on digital mammography interpretation performance. Acad Radiol 12(5):585–595

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Jarlman O, Borg A, Braw M, Kehler M, Lyttkens K, Samuelsson L (1994) Breast imaging: a comparison of digital luminescence radiographs displayed on TV-monitor and film-screen mammography. Cancer Detect Prev 18(5):375–381

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Jarlman O, Samuelsson L, Braw M (1991) Digital luminescence mammography: early clinical experience. Acta Radiol 32(2):110–113

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Kimme-Smith C, Bassett LW, Gold RH, Gormley L (1989) Digital mammography: a comparison of two digitization methods. Invest Radiol 24(11):869–875

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Yamada T, Ishibashi T, Sato A, Saito M, Saito H, Matsuhashi T, Takahashi S (2003) Comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography: image contrast and lesion characterization. Radiat Med 21(4):166–171

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Fischmann A, Siegmann KC, Wersebe A, Claussen CD, Muller-Schimpfle M (2005) Comparison of full-field digital mammography and film-screen mammography: image quality and lesion detection. Br J Radiol 78(928):312–315

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Becker L, Taves D, McCurdy L, Muscedere G, Karlik S, Ward S (2001) Stereotactic core biopsy of breast microcalcifications: comparison of film versus digital mammography, both using an add-on unit. Am J Roentgenol 177(6):1451–1457

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Ciatto S, Brancato B, Baglioni R, Turci M (2006) A methodology to evaluate differential costs of full field digital as compared to conventional screen film mammography in a clinical setting. Eur J Radiol 57(1):69–75

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Porter PL, El-Bastawissi AY, Mandelson MT, Lin MG, Khalid N, Watney EA, Cousens L, White D, Taplin S, White E (1999) Breast tumor characteristics as predictors of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 91(23):2020–2028

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. American College of Radiology (2003) Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS), 4th edn. Reston, VA

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

This work was supported by a contract from the Blue Shield of California Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of California, 1701 Divisadero Street, Suite 554, San Francisco, CA, 94143-1732, USA

    Jeffrey A. Tice & Mitchell D. Feldman

Authors
  1. Jeffrey A. Tice
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mitchell D. Feldman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeffrey A. Tice.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tice, J.A., Feldman, M.D. Full-field digital mammography compared with screen-film mammography in the detection of breast cancer: rays of light through DMIST or more fog?. Breast Cancer Res Treat 107, 157–165 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-007-9545-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-007-9545-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation