Comparison of Microcalcification Detection Rates and Recall Rates in Digital and Analogue Mammography

  • Nicola Barr
  • Caroline Boggis
  • Nicky Barr
  • Mary Wilson
  • Julie Morris
  • Michael Berks
  • Susan Astley
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6136)

Abstract

21158 screening mammograms were obtained, 10024 acquired using full field digital mammography (FFDM) and 11134 acquired using film-screen mammography. For each mammogram, data were collected on recall for further assessment due to detection of microcalcification, use of needle biopsy, and presence of microcalcifications in biopsy specimens. 61.5% of women who had a core biopsy following digital mammography had microcalcifications detected, compared with 65.8% for analogue mammography but this difference was not significant (p=0.71). Rates of detection of microcalcifications in women screened by the two methods were similar. It was also found that the recall rate for assessment for women screened digitally (6.1%) was significantly higher than the recall rate for those screened by analogue mammography (3.3%), 95% confidence interval 2.2% - 3.4%. Screening using digital mammography leads to a higher recall rate for assessment than analogue mammography, although similar rates of detection of microcalcifications occur with both imaging modalities.

Keywords

breast screening cancer detection mammographic features recall rates digital mammography 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Sala, M., Comas, M., Macia, F., Martinez, J., Casamitjana, M., Castells, X.: Implementation of Digital Mammography in a Population based Breast Cancer Screening Program: Effect of Screening Round On Recall Rate and Cancer Detection. Radiology 252(1) (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pisano, E.D., Gatsonis, C., Hendrick, E., Yaffe, M., Baum, J.K., Acharyya, S., et al.: Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N. Engl. J. Med. 353, 1773–1783 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vinnicombe, S., Pereira, S.M.P., Mc Cormack, V., Shiel, S., dos Santos, S.I.: Full-Field Digital versus Screen-Film Mammography: Comparison within the UK Breast Screening Program and Systematic Review of Published Data. Radiology 251, 347–358 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yankaskas, B.C., Cleveland, R.J., Schell, M.J., Kozar, R.: Association of Recall Rates with Sensitivity and Positive Predictive Values of Screening Mammography Am. J. Roentgenol. 177(3), 543–549 (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Otten, J.D., Karssemeijer, N., Hendriks, J.H.C.L., Groenewoud, J.H., Fracheboud, J., Verbeek, A.L.M., de Koning, H.J., Holland, R.: Effect of Recall Rate on Earlier Screen Detection of Breast Cancers Based on the Dutch Performance Indicators. JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 97(10), 748–754 (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    2009 Annual Report of the NHS Breast Screening Programme, http://www.cancerscreening.nhs.uk/breastscreen/publications/nhsbsp-annualreview2009.pdf (accessed 12.03.10)
  7. 7.
    Fischer, U., Baum, F., Obenauer, S., Luftner-Nagel, S., Von Heyden, D., Vosshenrich, R., et al.: Comparative study in patients with microcalcifications: full-field digital mammography vs screen-film mammography. EurRadiol. 11, 2679–2683 (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Del Turco, M.R., Mantellini, P., Ciatto, S., Bonardi, R., Martinelli, F., Lazzari, B., Houssami, N.: Full-Field Digital Versus Screen-Film Mammography: Comparative Accuracy in Concurrent Screening Cohorts. AJR 189, 860–866 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Obenauer, S., Luftner-Nagel, S., von Heyden, D., Munzel, U., Baum, F., Grabbe, E.: Screen film vs full-field digital mammography: image quality, detectability and characterization of lesions. Eur. Radiol. 12, 1697–1702 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yamada, T., Ishibashi, T., Sato, A., et al.: Comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography: image contrast and lesion characterization. Radiat. Med. 21, 166–171 (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicola Barr
    • 1
  • Caroline Boggis
    • 2
  • Nicky Barr
    • 2
  • Mary Wilson
    • 2
  • Julie Morris
    • 3
  • Michael Berks
    • 4
  • Susan Astley
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Manchester Medical SchoolEngland
  2. 2.Nightingale Breast Centre and Genesis Prevention CentreUniversity Hospital of South ManchesterEngland
  3. 3.Medical StatisticsUniversity Hospital of South Manchester, Wythenshawe HospitalEngland
  4. 4.Cancer and Enabling ScienceUniversity of ManchesterEngland

Personalised recommendations