Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Full-field digital mammography compared to screen film mammography in the prevalent round of a population-based screening programme: the Vestfold County Study

  • Breast
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to compare the performance of full-field digital mammography (FFDM) with soft-copy reading to screen film mammography (SFM) used during the first prevalent 2-year round of population-based screening. A total of 18,239 women aged 50–69 years were screened with FFDM as part of the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Programme (NBCSP). Process indicators were compared to data from 324,763 women screened with SFM using the common national database of the NBCSP. The cancer detection rates were 0.77% (140/18,239) for FFDM and 0.65% (2,105/324,763) for SFM (p = 0.058). For ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) alone, the results were: FFDM 0.21% (38/18,239) compared to SFM 0.11% (343/324,763) (p < 0.001). Recall rates due to positive mammography were for FFDM 4.09% (746/18,239), while for SFM 4.16% (13,520/324,764) (p = 0.645), due to technically insufficient imaging: FFDM 0.22% (40/18,239) versus SFM 0.61% (1,993/324,763) (p < 0.001). The positive predictive value (PPV) in the FFDM group was 16.6% (140/843), while 13.5% (2,105/15,537) for SFM (p = 0.014). No statistically significant differences were recorded concerning histological morphology, tumour size, or lymph node involvement. In conclusion FFDM had a significantly higher detection rate for DCIS than SFM. For invasive cancers no difference was seen. FFDM also had a significantly higher PPV and a significantly lower technical recall rate.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Obenauer S, Luftner-Nagel S, von Heyden D, Munzel U, Baum F, Grabbe E (2002) Screen film vs full-field digital mammography: image quality, detectability and characterization of lesions. Eur Radiol 12:1697–1702. DOI 10.1007/s00330-001-1269-y

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Berns EA, Henrick RE, Cutter GR (2002) Performance comparison of full-field digital to screen film mammography in clinical practice. Med Phys 29:830–834

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Gennaro G, di Maggio C (2006) Dose comparison between screen/film and full-field digital mammography. Eur Radiol 16:2559–2566. DOI 10.1007/s00330-006-0314-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Pisano ED, Cole EB, Major S et al (2000) Radiologists’ preferences for digital mammographic display. Radiology 216:820–830

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 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 229:877–884. DOI 10.1148/radiol.2293021171

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Skaane P, Skjennald A (2004) Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: randomized trial in a population-based screening programme-the Oslo II study. Radiology 232:197–204. DOI 10.1148/radiol.2321031624

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, Yaffe M, Baum JK (2005) Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 353:1773–1783. DOI 10.1056/NEJMoa052911

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. The Ministry of Health and Social Affairs. Regulations on the collection and processing of personal health data in the Cancer Registry of Norway (Cancer Registry Regulations) (2001) The Ministry of Health and Social Affairs, Oslo, Norway

  11. European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis (2006) 4th Edition. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities

  12. Hofvind S, Wang H, Thoresen S (2004) Do the results of the process indicators in the Norwegian Breast cancer Screening Program predict future mortality reduction from breast cancer? Acta Oncol 43:467–473

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Addendum on digital mammography to chapter 3 of the European Guidelines for Quality assurance in Mammography Screening, version 1.0, November 2003. http://www.euref.org/

  14. Pedersen K, Nordanger J (2002) Quality control of the physical and technical aspects of mammography in the Norwegian breast-screening programme. Eur Radiol 12:463–470. DOI 10.1007/s003300101107

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. 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 

  16. Pisano ED, Yaffe MJ (2005) Digital mammography. Radiology 234:353–362. DOI 10.1148/radiol.2342030897

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Fischer U, Hermann KP, Baum F (2006) Digital mammography: current state and future aspects. Eur Radiol 16:38–44. DOI 10.1007/s00330-005-2848-0

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Yankaskas BC, Cleveland RJ, Schell MJ, Kozar R (2001) Association of recall rates with sensitivity and positive predictive values of screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 177:543–549

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Smith-Bindman R, Ballard-Barbash R, Miglioretti DL, Patnick J, Kerlikowske K (2005) The performance of mammography screening in the USA and the UK. J Med Screen 12:50–54. DOI 10.1258/0969141053279130

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Ernster VL, Ballard-Barbash R, Zheng Y, Weaver DL, Cutter G, Yankaskas BC (2002) Detection of ductal carcinoma in women undergoing screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst 94:1546–1554

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Van Ongeval C, Bosmans H, Van Steen A et al (2006) Evaluation of the diagnostic value of a computed radiography system by comparison of digital hard copy images with screen-film mammography: results of a prospective clinical trial. Eur Radiol 16:1360–1366. DOI 10.1007/s00330-005-0134-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Fischer U, Baum F, Obenauer S et al (2002) Comparative study in patients with microcalcifications: full-field digital mammography vs screen-film mammography. Eur Radiol 12:2679–2683. DOI 10.1007/s00330-002-1354-x

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. American College of Radiology (2003) Illustrated breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS™), 4th edn. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology

    Google Scholar 

  24. Feig SA (2000) Ductal carcinoma in situ implications for screening mammography. Radiol Clin N Am 38:653–668

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Kessar P, Perry N, Vinnicombe SJ, Hussain HK, Carpenter R, Wells CA (2002) How significant is detection of ductal carcinoma in situ in a breast screening programme? Clin Radiol 57:807–814

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Paci E, Warwick P, Falini P, Duffy SW (2004) Overdiagnosis in screening: is the increase in breast cancer incidense a cause for concern? J Med Screen; 11:23–27. DOI 10.1258/096914104772950718

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Zackrisson S, Andreasson I, Janzon L, Manjer J, Garne JP (2006) Rate of over-diagnosis of breast cancer 15 years after end of Malmö mammographic screening trial: follow-up study. BMJ 332:689–692. DOI 10.1136/bmj.38764.572569.7C

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Elmore JG, Wells CK, Lee CH, Howard DH, Fienstein AR (1994) Variability in radiologists’ interpretations of mammograms. N Engl J Med 331:1493–1499

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. 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 

  30. Venta LA, Hendrick RE, Adler YT et al (2001) Rates and causes of disagreement in interpretation of full-field digital mammography and film-screen mammography in a diagnostic setting. AJR Am J Roentgenol 176:1241–1248

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We like to thank Katrina Klaasen for her help in preparing the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Vestfold Hospital, Halfdan Wilhelmsens Alle 17, 3116, Tønsberg, Norway

    Einar Vigeland

  2. Department of Radiology, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Foresterhill AB25 2ZN, Aberdeen, Scotland, UK

    Herman Klaasen

  3. Department of Pathology, Vestfold Hospital, Halfdan Wilhelmsens Alle 17, 3116, Tønsberg, Norway

    Tor Audun Klingen

  4. The Cancer Registry of Norway, Fritjof Nansens vei 17, 0369, Oslo, Norway

    Solveig Hofvind

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

    Per Skaane

Authors
  1. Einar Vigeland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Herman Klaasen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tor Audun Klingen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Solveig Hofvind
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Per Skaane
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Einar Vigeland.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vigeland, E., Klaasen, H., Klingen, T.A. et al. Full-field digital mammography compared to screen film mammography in the prevalent round of a population-based screening programme: the Vestfold County Study. Eur Radiol 18, 183–191 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-007-0730-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-007-0730-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation