Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Conspicuity of breast cancer according to histopathological type and breast density when imaged by full-field digital mammography compared with screen-film mammography

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

Abstract

Objectives

To compare the conspicuity of different histopathological types of breast cancer according to breast density and mammographic imaging in patients with screen-detected breast cancers undergoing both full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and screen-film mammography (SFM) in the United Kingdom National Health Service Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP).

Methods

185 patients underwent routine screening with SFM followed by further imaging using FFDM with consequent diagnosis of breast cancer. All SFM and soft-copy FFDM images were evaluated by two readers in an independent, retrospective review. The visualisation and conspicuity of the mammographic abnormality were recorded and graded using a four-level scale. Conspicuity of breast cancer was qualitatively evaluated. Breast density and conspicuity were correlated with histopathological diagnosis and inter-observer correlation was calculated.

Results

Mixed Model ANOVA demonstrated significant differences between FFDM and SFM (p < 0.001) and breast densities (p = 0.009): conspicuity of the mammographic abnormality (p < 0.001) and visualisation of the dominant mammographic feature (p < 0.001) were significantly greater with FFDM than SFM. This held true for both readers and for all histopathological tumour types with no significant differences between each tumour type.

Conclusion

FFDM is significantly superior to SFM for conspicuity of screen-detected breast cancers for all histopathological types and breast densities.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. 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 232:197–204

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E et al (2005) Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 353:1773–1783

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Lewin JM, D’Orsi CJ, Hendrick 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 

  4. 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 examinations. Radiology 218:873–880

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Gur D (2007) Digital mammography: do we need to convert now? Radiology 245:10–11

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hendrick RE, Cole EB, Pisano ED et al (2008) Accuracy of soft-copy digital mammography versus that of screen-film mammography according to digital manufacturer: ACRIN DMIST retrospective multireader study. Radiology 247:38–48

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Pisano ED, Hendrick RE, Yaffe MJ et al (2008) Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST. Radiology 246:376–383

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 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  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Skaane P, Hofvind S, Skjennald A (2007) Randomized trial of screen-film versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading in population-based screening program: follow-up and final results of Oslo II study. Radiology 244:708–717

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Liston J WR, eds (2005) Quality assurance guidelines for breast cancer screening radiology. National Health Service Breast Screening Program Publication No 59. London: Department of Health

  11. BM PN, de Wolf C et al (eds) (2006) European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis, 4th edn. European Communities, Luxembourg

    Google Scholar 

  12. Radiology RVACo (2004) American College of Radiology (ACR). Breast Imaging and Reporting Data System (BI-RADS)

  13. Luck AA, Evans AJ, James JJ et al (2008) Breast carcinoma with basal phenotype: mammographic findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol 191:346–351

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Burrell HC, Sibbering DM, Wilson AR et al (1996) Screening interval breast cancers: mammographic features and prognosis factors. Radiology 199:811–817

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Vigeland E, Klaasen H, Klingen TA, Hofvind S, Skaane P (2008) 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Seo BK, Pisano ED, Kuzmiak CM et al (2006) The positive predictive value for diagnosis of breast cancer full-field digital mammography versus film-screen mammography in the diagnostic mammographic population. Acad Radiol 13:1229–1235

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Dershaw DD (2006) Status of mammography after the digital mammography imaging screening trial: digital versus film. Breast J 12:99–102

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Bick U, Diekmann F (2007) Digital mammography: what do we and what don’t we know? Eur Radiol 17:1931–1942

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 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

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Del Turco MR, Mantellini P, Ciatto S et al (2007) Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparative accuracy in concurrent screening cohorts. AJR Am J Roentgenol 189:860–866

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Vinnicombe S, Pinto Pereira SM, McCormack VA, Shiel S, Perry N, Dos Santos Silva IM (2009) Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparison within the UK breast screening program and systematic review of published data. Radiology 251:347–358

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Divison of Molecular and Gender Imaging, Medical University Vienna, Vienna, Austria

    Katja Pinker

  2. Department of Radiology, MR Centre of Excellence, Medical University Vienna, Vienna, Austria

    Katja Pinker

  3. Breast Unit, Barts and The London Cancer Centre, St Bartholomew’s Hospital, West Smithfield, London, EC1A 7BE, UK

    Nicholas Perry, S. Vinnicombe & S. Shiel

  4. The London Breast Institute, The Princess Grace Hospital, London, UK

    Nicholas Perry

  5. Department of Radiology, Medical University Vienna, Vienna, Austria

    M. Weber

Authors
  1. Katja Pinker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nicholas Perry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S. Vinnicombe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. S. Shiel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. M. Weber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katja Pinker.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pinker, K., Perry, N., Vinnicombe, S. et al. Conspicuity of breast cancer according to histopathological type and breast density when imaged by full-field digital mammography compared with screen-film mammography. Eur Radiol 21, 18–25 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-010-1906-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-010-1906-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation