Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Impact of the Introduction of Digital Mammography in an Organized Screening Program on the Recall and Detection Rate

  • Published:
Journal of Digital Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In 2012, the Reggio Emilia Breast Cancer Screening Program introduced digital mammography in all its facilities at the same time. The aim of this work is to analyze the impact of digital mammography introduction on the recall rate, detection rate, and positive predictive value. The program actively invites women aged 45–74 years. We included women screened in 2011, all of whom underwent film-screen mammography, and all women screened in 2012, all of whom underwent digital mammography. Double reading was used for all mammograms, with arbitration in the event of disagreement. A total of 42,240 women underwent screen-film mammography and 45,196 underwent digital mammography. The recall rate increased from 3.3 to 4.4 % in the first year of digital mammography (relative recall adjusted by age and round 1.46, 95 % CI = 1.37–1.56); the positivity rate for each individual reading, before arbitration, rose from 3 to 5.7 %. The digital mammography recall rate decreased during 2012: after 12 months, it was similar to the recall rate with screen-film mammography. The detection rate was similar: 5.9/1000 and 5.2/1000 with screen-film and digital mammography, respectively (adjusted relative detection rate 0.95, 95 % CI = 0.79–1.13). The relative detection rate for ductal carcinoma in situ remained the same. The introduction of digital mammography to our organized screening program had a negative impact on specificity, thereby increasing the recall rate. The effect was limited to the first 12 months after introduction and was attenuated by the double reading with arbitration. We did not observe any relevant effects on the detection rate.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Segnan N, Patnick J, von Karsa L Eds. European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis. 1st edition. Edited by Luxembourg: European Communities, 2010:1–339

  2. Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening: The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Lancet 380(9855):1778–1786, 2012. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61611-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Paci E, Broeders M, Hofvind S, the EUROSCREEN Working Group, et al: European Breast Cancer Service Screening Outcomes: A First Balance Sheet of the Benefits and Harms. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 23(7):1159–1163, 2014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Vinnicombe S, Pinto Pereira SM, McCormack VA, et al: Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparison within the UK breast screening program and systematic review of published data. Radiology 251(2):347–358, 2009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Skaane P: Studies comparing screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography in breast cancer screening: updated review. Acta Radiol 50(1):3–14, 2009

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Comas M, Arrospide A, Mar J, et al: Budget impact analysis of switching to digital mammography in a population-based breast cancer screening program: a discrete event simulation model. PLoS One 9(5):e97459, 2014

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Bluekens AM, Karssemeijer N, Beijerinck D, et al: Consequences of digital mammography in population-based breast cancer screening: initial changes and long-term impact on referral rates. Eur Radiol 20(9):2067–2073, 2010

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. van Luijt PA, Fracheboud J, Heijnsdijk EA, National Evaluation Team for Breast Cancer Screening in Netherlands Study Group (NETB), et al: Nation-wide data on screening performance during the transition to digital mammography: observations in 6 million screens. Eur J Cancer 49(16):3517–3525, 2013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Vigeland E, Klaasen H, Klingen TA, 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(1):183–191, 2008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Karssemeijer N, Bluekens AM, Beijerinck D, et al: Breast cancer screening results 5 years after introduction of digital mammography in a population-based screening program. Radiology 253(2):353–358, 2009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bjurstam N, Hofvind S, Pedersen K, et al: Full-field digital mammography screening in the population based screening program in North-Norway: preliminary results. Radiology /241(P):/392,2006.

  12. Perry NM, Pinto Pereira SM, McCormack VA, et al: Comparison of full-field digital mammography with conventional screen-film mammography within a population-based breast screening program. Radiology /245(P):/382,2007.

  13. Nederend J, Duijm LE, Louwman MW, et al: Impact of transition from analog screening mammography to digital screening mammography on screening outcome in The Netherlands: a population-based study. Ann Oncol 23(12):3098–3103, 2012

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hofvind S, Skaane P, Elmore JG, et al: Mammographic performance in a population-based screening program: before, during, and after the transition from screen-film to full-field digital mammography. Radiology 272(1):52–62, 2014. doi:10.1148/radiol.14131502

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Bluekens AM, Holland R, Karssemeijer N, et al: Comparison of digital screening mammography and screen-film mammography in the early detection of clinically relevant cancers: a multicenter study. Radiology 265(3):707–714, 2012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Nederend J, Duijm LE, Louwman MW, et al: Impact of the transition from screen-film to digital screening mammography on interval cancer characteristics and treatment - a population based study from the Netherlands. Eur J Cancer 50:31–39, 2014. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2013.09.018

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Skaane P, Young K, Skjennald A: Population-based mammography screening: comparison of screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography using soft-copy reading: the Oslo I study. Radiology 229:877–884, 2003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Skaane P, Skjennald A, Young K, et al: 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, 2005

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Skaane P, Skjennald A: 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, 2004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Skaane P, Hofvind S, Skjennald A: 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, 2007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Del Turco MR, Mantellini P, Ciatto S, et al: Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparative accuracy in concurrent screening cohorts. AJR Am J Roentgenol 189(4):860–866, 2007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Karssemeijer N, Beijerinck D, Visser R, et al: Effect of introduction of digital mammography with CAD in a population based screening program. Eur Radiol /Suppl 1:/151_2,2008.

  23. Heddson B, Roennow K, Olsson M, et al. Digital versus screen-film mammography: a retrospective comparison in a population-based screening program. Eur J Radiol /64:/419-25,2007.

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kerlikowske K, Hubbard RA, Miglioretti DL, et al: Comparative effectiveness of digital versus film-screen mammography in community practice in the United States: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med 155(8):493–502, 2011

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Bucchi L, Ravaioli A, Foca F, Emilia-Romagna Breast Screening Programme, et al: Incidence of interval breast cancers after 650,000 negative mammographies in 13 Italian health districts. J Med Screen 15(1):30–35, 2008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Sala M, Comas M, Macià F, et al: 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):31–39, 2009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Drukker CA, Schmidt MK, Rutgers EJ, et al: Mammographic screening detects low-risk tumor biology breast cancers. Breast Cancer Res Treat 144(1):103–111, 2014

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Hoff SR, Abrahamsen AL, Samset JH, et al: Breast cancer: missed interval and screening-detected cancer at full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography results from a retrospective review. Radiology 264(2):378–386, 2012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors’ Contribution

Study concepts were contributed by PGR, PP, and CC. Study design was done by PGR and CC. Data acquisition was performed by PM, CC, PP, and SR. Quality control of data and algorithms was ensured by PM. Data analysis and interpretation were done by PGR, PM, and CC. Statistical analysis was performed by PM and CC. Manuscript preparation was done by PGR. Manuscript editing and review were done by all authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pamela Mancuso.

Ethics declarations

This study was conducted in accordance with the routine quality assurance procedures established by the Local Health Authority for its screening programs. The Reggio Emilia Cancer Registry, which routinely collects the screening history of each case of breast cancer, has been approved by the Provincial Ethic Committee.

Additional information

Key Points

• The introduction of digital mammography in screening produced an initial increase in the recall rate.

• After 12 months, the recall rate returned to the levels achieved with screen-film mammography.

• We did not observe any effects on the detection rate.

• We did not observe any increase in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) detection.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Campari, C., Rossi, P.G., Mori, C.A. et al. Impact of the Introduction of Digital Mammography in an Organized Screening Program on the Recall and Detection Rate. J Digit Imaging 29, 235–242 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-015-9843-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-015-9843-z

Keywords

Navigation