Implementation of digital mammography in a population-based breast cancer screening program: effect of screening round on recall rate and cancer detection.

PURPOSE To compare the effect of the introduction of digital mammography on the recall rate, detection rate, false-positive rate, and rates of invasive procedures performed in the first and successive rounds of a population-based breast cancer screening program with double reading in Barcelona, Spain. MATERIALS AND METHODS The study was approved by the ethics committee; informed consent was not required. Data were compared from 12,958 women aged 50-69 years old who participated in a screening round before the introduction of digital mammography (screen-film mammography group) with data from 6074 women who participated in another screening round after the introduction of digital mammography (digital mammography group). Groups were compared for recall rate and detection rate stratified according to first or successive screening rounds, and logistic regression analysis was performed. RESULTS Overall recall rates for screen-film and digital mammography groups were 5.5% and 4.2%, respectively (P < .001). The recall rate was higher in the first screening round (11.5% and 11.1% in the screen-film mammography and digital mammography groups, respectively; P = .68) than in successive screening rounds (3.6% and 2.4% in the screen-film mammography and digital mammography groups, respectively; P < .001). The main factors related to the risk of recall were screen-film mammography group (odds ratio = 1.28), first screening round (odds ratio = 3.53), menopausal status (odds ratio = 0.62), and history of personal benign breast disease (odds ratio = 2.26). No significant differences were found in the cancer detection rate between groups. In the first screening round, this rate was higher in the digital than in the screen-film mammography group (1.1% and 0.4%, respectively; P = .009). The invasive test rate was 2.6% and 1.3% in the screen-film and digital mammography groups, respectively (P < .001) and was lower with digital mammography than with screen-film mammography in both the first and successive screening rounds. CONCLUSION Digital mammography may reduce the adverse effects of screening programs if this technique is confirmed to have the same diagnostic accuracy as screen-film mammography.

[1]  C. D'Orsi,et al.  Diagnostic Performance of Digital versus Film Mammography for Breast-Cancer Screening , 2006 .

[2]  A. Bull,et al.  Assessment of the psychological impact of a breast screening programme. , 1991, The British journal of radiology.

[3]  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.

[4]  L. de Jong-van den Berg,et al.  Dramatic change in prescribing of hormone replacement therapy in The Netherlands after publication of the Million Women Study: a follow-up study. , 2005, British journal of clinical pharmacology.

[5]  Felix Diekmann,et al.  Digital mammography: what do we and what don’t we know? , 2007, European Radiology.

[6]  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.

[7]  Valerie Beral,et al.  Breast cancer and hormone-replacement therapy in the Million Women Study , 2003, The Lancet.

[8]  A. Gelfand,et al.  Predicting the cumulative risk of false-positive mammograms. , 2000, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[9]  X. Castells,et al.  Cumulative false positive recall rate and association with participant related factors in a population based breast cancer screening programme , 2006, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.

[10]  Jean B. Cormack,et al.  Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST. , 2008, Radiology.

[11]  Karla Kerlikowske,et al.  Comparing the performance of mammography screening in the USA and the UK , 2005, Journal of medical screening.

[12]  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.

[13]  Boel Heddson,et al.  Digital versus screen-film mammography: a retrospective comparison in a population-based screening program. , 2007, European journal of radiology.

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

[15]  Solveig Hofvind,et al.  The cumulative risk of a false‐positive recall in the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program , 2004, Cancer.

[16]  Noel T Brewer,et al.  Systematic Review: The Long-Term Effects of False-Positive Mammograms , 2007, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[17]  M. Tsuboi,et al.  Comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography in Japanese population-based screening. , 2004, Radiation medicine.

[18]  R. Hendrick,et al.  Performance comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen-film mammography in clinical practice. , 2002, Medical physics.

[19]  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.

[20]  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.