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.

PURPOSE To prospectively compare performance indicators at screen-film mammography (SFM) and full-field digital mammography (FFDM) in a population-based screening program. MATERIALS AND METHODS The regional ethics committee approved the study; informed consent was obtained from patients. Women aged 45-69 years were assigned to undergo SFM (n=16 985) or FFDM (n=6944). Two-view mammograms were interpreted by using independent double reading and a five-point rating scale for probability of cancer. Positive scores were discussed at consensus meetings before decision for recall. The group was followed up for 1.5 years (women aged 45-49 years) and 2.0 years (women aged 50-69 years) to include subsequent cancers with positive scores at baseline interpretation and to estimate interval cancer rate. Recall rates, cancer detection, positive predictive values (PPVs), sensitivity, specificity, tumor characteristics, and discordant interpretations of cancers were compared. RESULTS Recall rate was 4.2% at FFDM and 2.5% at SFM (P<.001). Cancer detection rate was 0.59% at FFDM and 0.38% at SFM (P=.02). There was no significant difference in PPVs. Median size of screening-detected invasive cancers was 14 mm at FFDM and 13 mm at SFM. Including cancers dismissed at consensus meetings, overall true-positive rate at baseline reading was 0.63% at FFDM and 0.43% at SFM (P=.04). Sensitivity was 77.4% at FFDM and 61.5% at SFM (P=.07); specificity was 96.5% and 97.9%, respectively (P<.005). Interval cancer rate was 17.4 at FFDM and 23.6 at SFM. The proportion of cancers with discordant double readings was comparable at FFDM and SFM. CONCLUSION FFDM resulted in a significantly higher cancer detection rate than did SFM. The PPVs were comparable for the two imaging modalities.

[1]  P. Skaane,et al.  Number and characteristics of breast cancer cases diagnosed in four periods in the screening interval of a biennial population-based screening programme , 2006, Journal of medical screening.

[2]  P. Glasziou,et al.  Evaluating new screening tests for breast cancer , 2006, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[3]  J. Keen.  Digital and film mammography. , 2006, The New England journal of medicine.

[4]  P. Skaane,et al.  Receiver operating characteristic analysis: a proper measurement for performance in breast cancer screening? , 2006, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[5]  P. Skaane,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 , 2005, Acta radiologica.

[6]  B. Viták,et al.  Influence of review design on percentages of missed interval breast cancers: retrospective study of interval cancers in a population-based screening program. , 2005, Radiology.

[7]  Alan C. Evans,et al.  The pathological and radiological features of screen-detected breast cancers diagnosed following arbitration of discordant double reading opinions. , 2005, Clinical radiology.

[8]  C. D'Orsi,et al.  Diagnostic Performance of Digital Versus Film Mammography for Breast-Cancer Screening , 2005, The New England journal of medicine.

[9]  E. Burnside,et al.  The use of batch reading to improve the performance of screening mammography. , 2005, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[10]  S. Ciatto,et al.  Second reading of screening mammograms increases cancer detection and recall rates. Results in the Florence screening programme , 2005, Journal of medical screening.

[11]  Per Skaane,et al.  Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: randomized trial in a population-based screening program--the Oslo II Study. , 2004, Radiology.

[12]  Harry J de Koning,et al.  Independent double reading of screening mammograms in The Netherlands: effect of arbitration following reader disagreements. , 2004, Radiology.

[13]  Per Skaane,et al.  Population-based mammography screening: comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading--Oslo I study. , 2003, Radiology.

[14]  Debra M Ikeda,et al.  Analysis of 172 subtle findings on prior normal mammograms in women with breast cancer detected at follow-up screening. , 2003, Radiology.

[15]  Elizabeth S Burnside,et al.  Differential value of comparison with previous examinations in diagnostic versus screening mammography. , 2002, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[16]  C. D'Orsi,et al.  Clinical comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection of breast cancer. , 2002, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[17]  J. Baker,et al.  Malignant lesions initially subjected to short-term mammographic follow-up. , 2002, Radiology.

[18]  S. Moss,et al.  Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of double reading of mammograms in breast cancer screening: findings of a systematic review. , 2001, Breast.

[19]  M J Schell,et al.  Association of recall rates with sensitivity and positive predictive values of screening mammography. , 2001, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[20]  J M Lewin,et al.  Comparison of full-field digital mammography with screen-film mammography for cancer detection: results of 4,945 paired examinations. , 2001, Radiology.

[21]  Double reading of screening mammograms: the use of a third reader to arbitrate on disagreements , 1999 .

[22]  Craig A. Beam,et al.  Variability in the interpretation of screening mammograms by US radiologists. Findings from a national sample. , 1996, Archives of internal medicine.

[23]  J. Elmore,et al.  Variability in radiologists' interpretations of mammograms. , 1994, The New England journal of medicine.

[24]  E. Thurfjell,et al.  Benefit of independent double reading in a population-based mammography screening program. , 1994, Radiology.

[25]  Roland Holland,et al.  The current detectability of breast cancer in a mammographic screening program. A review of the previous mammograms of interval and screen‐detected cancers , 1993, Cancer.