Mammographic performance in a population-based screening program: before, during, and after the transition from screen-film to full-field digital mammography.

PURPOSE To compare performance measures before, during, and after the transition from screen-film mammography (SFM) to full-field digital mammography (FFDM) in a population-based screening program. MATERIALS AND METHODS No institutional review board approval was required for this analysis involving anonymized data for women aged 50-69 years enrolled in the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program during 1996-2010. The χ(2) test was used to examine the equality of proportions of recall rates, positive predictive value of recall examinations and of invasive procedures, in addition to rates of screening-detected and interval cancers in women initially screened with SFM and FFDM and for women subsequently screened with SFM after SFM, FFDM after SFM, and FFDM after FFDM. RESULTS The recall rate was 3.4% (47 091 of 1 391 188) for SFM and 2.9% (13 130 of 446 172) for FFDM (P < .001). The biopsy rate was 1.4% (19 776 of 1 391 188) for SFM and 1.1% (5108 of 446 172) for FFDM (P < .001). The rate of screening-detected ductal carcinoma in situ was higher (P = .019) while the rate of invasive breast cancer was lower (P < .001) for FFDM compared with those for SFM. The rate of both invasive screening-detected and interval breast cancer remained stable during the transition from SFM to FFDM (when the previous examination was SFM) and after FFDM was firmly established (when the previous examination was FFDM, >25 months after FFDM adoption) (P < .05). The positive predictive value of recall examinations and of invasive procedures increased from 19.3% (4559 of 23 598) and 48.3% (4651 of 9623) to 22.7% (681 of 2995) and 57.5% (689 of 1198), respectively, after adoption of FFDM (P < .001). CONCLUSION After the initial transitional phase from SFM to FFDM, population-based screening with FFDM is associated with less harm because of lower recall and biopsy rates and higher positive predictive values after biopsy than screening with SFM.

[1]  Sarah Vinnicombe,et al.  Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparison within the UK breast screening program and systematic review of published data. , 2009, Radiology.

[2]  P. Skaane,et al.  Trends in incidence of ductal carcinoma in situ: the effect of a population-based screening programme. , 2010, Breast.

[3]  P. Skaane,et al.  Using the European guidelines to evaluate the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program , 2007, European Journal of Epidemiology.

[4]  C. Lehman,et al.  Comparative Effectiveness of Digital Versus Film-Screen Mammography in Community Practice in the United States , 2011, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[5]  J. Elmore,et al.  Screening mammograms by community radiologists: variability in false-positive rates. , 2002, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[6]  P. Skaane.  Studies comparing screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography in breast cancer screening: Updated review , 2009, Acta radiologica.

[7]  D. Miglioretti,et al.  Cumulative Probability of False-Positive Recall or Biopsy Recommendation After 10 Years of Screening Mammography , 2011, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[8]  Bjørn Møller,et al.  Data quality at the Cancer Registry of Norway: an overview of comparability, completeness, validity and timeliness. , 2009, European journal of cancer.

[9]  Stefano Ciatto,et al.  Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparative accuracy in concurrent screening cohorts. , 2007, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[10]  J. Elmore,et al.  Variability in interpretive performance at screening mammography and radiologists' characteristics associated with accuracy. , 2009, Radiology.

[11]  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.

[12]  Andrea J Cook,et al.  Breast cancer risk by breast density, menopause, and postmenopausal hormone therapy use. , 2010, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[13]  Solveig Hofvind,et al.  Breast cancer: missed interval and screening-detected cancer at full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography-- results from a retrospective review. , 2012, Radiology.

[14]  J. Elmore,et al.  Ten-year risk of false positive screening mammograms and clinical breast examinations. , 1998, The New England journal of medicine.

[15]  Mercè Comas,et al.  Implementation of digital mammography in a population-based breast cancer screening program: effect of screening round on recall rate and cancer detection. , 2009, Radiology.

[16]  J. Elmore,et al.  Does practice make perfect when interpreting mammography? , 2002, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[17]  D. Miglioretti,et al.  Individual and Combined Effects of Age, Breast Density, and Hormone Replacement Therapy Use on the Accuracy of Screening Mammography , 2003, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[18]  P. Skaane,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 , 2007, European Radiology.

[19]  R. Langer,et al.  Influence of Estrogen Plus Progestin on Breast Cancer and Mammography in Healthy Postmenopausal Women: The Women's Health Initiative Randomized Trial , 2003 .

[20]  I H R Hauge,et al.  Patient doses from screen-film and full-field digital mammography in a population-based screening programme. , 2012, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[21]  Alfonso Frigerio,et al.  False-Positive Results in Mammographic Screening for Breast Cancer in Europe: A Literature Review and Survey of Service Screening Programmes , 2012, Journal of medical screening.

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

[23]  D. Miglioretti,et al.  Prognostic characteristics of breast cancer among postmenopausal hormone users in a screened population. , 2003, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[24]  P. Skaane,et al.  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. , 2007, Radiology.

[25]  Joann G Elmore,et al.  Does practice make perfect when interpreting mammography? Part II. , 2003, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[26]  Per Skaane,et al.  Screening-detected breast cancers: discordant independent double reading in a population-based screening program. , 2009, Radiology.

[27]  Nico Karssemeijer,et al.  Breast cancer screening results 5 years after introduction of digital mammography in a population-based screening program. , 2009, Radiology.

[28]  Per Skaane,et al.  Overview of the evidence on digital breast tomosynthesis in breast cancer detection. , 2013, Breast.

[29]  L. Schwartz,et al.  The benefits and harms of mammography screening: understanding the trade-offs. , 2010, JAMA.

[30]  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.