Comparison of digital mammography and screen-film mammography in breast cancer screening: A review in the Irish Breast Screening Program

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 193, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 1010-1018

  Hambly, Niamh M ^a,b   McNicholas, Michelle M ^a   Phelan, Niall ^a   Hargaden, Gormlaith C ^a   O'Doherty, Ann ^a   Flanagan, Fidelma L ^a  

^a Irish National Breast Screening Programme   (Ireland)

^b THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

Breast cancer; Breast cancer screening; Breast imaging; Digital imaging; Digital mammography; Screen film mammography

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CALCIFICATION; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER INVASION; CANCER SCREENING; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; GROUPS BY AGE; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; INTRADUCTAL CARCINOMA; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; POPULATION BASED CASE CONTROL STUDY; PREDICTIVE VALIDITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RATING SCALE; SCREEN FILM MAMMOGRAPHY; TUMOR VOLUME; ULTRASOUND;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; IRELAND; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; PREVALENCE; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; REGISTRIES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; X-RAY FILM;

EID: 70349671353     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/AJR.08.2157     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Berry DA, Cronin KA, Plevritis SK, et al. Effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2005; 353:1784-1792 (Pubitemid 41549890)
2. Tabár L, Fagerberg CJ, Gad A, et al. Reduction in mortality from breast cancer after mass screening with mammography: randomised trial from the Breast Cancer Screening Working Group of the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare. Lancet 1985; 1:829-832
3. Nyström L, Andersson I, Bjurstam N, Frisell J, Nordenskjöld B, Rutqvist LE. Long-term effects of mammography screening: updated overview of the Swedish randomised trials. Lancet 2002; 359:909-919 (Pubitemid 34246378)
4. Pisano ED, Yaffe MJ. Digital mammography. Radiology 2005; 234:353-362
5. Suryanarayanan S, Karellas A, Vedantham S, Ved H, Baker S, D'Orsi C. Flat-panel digital mammography system: contrast-detail comparison between screen-film radiographs and hard-copy images. Radiology 2002; 225:801-807 (Pubitemid 35387120)
6. Fischer U, Baum F, Obenauer S, et al. Comparative study in patients with microcalcifications: full-field digital mammography vs screen-film mammography. Eur Radiol 2002; 12:2679-2683 (Pubitemid 36940378)
7. Fischmann A, Siegmann K, Wersebe A, Claussen C, Muller-Schimpfle M. Comparison of full-field digital mammography and film-screen mammography: image quality and lesion detection. Br J Radiol 2005; 78:312-315 (Pubitemid 40520737)
8. Lewin JM, Hendrick RE, D'Orsi CJ, et al. Comparison of full-field digital mammography with screen-film mammography for cancer detection: results of 4,945 paired examinations. Radiology 2001; 218:873-880
9. 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. AJR 2002; 179:671-677 (Pubitemid 34919579)
10. Skaane P, Young K, Skjennald A. Population-based mammography screening: comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading - Oslo I study. Radiology 2003; 229:877-884 (Pubitemid 37467596)
11. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, et al.; DMIST Investigators Group. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2005; 353:1773-1783 [Erratum in N Engl J Med 2006; 355:1840]
12. Pisano ED, Hendrick RE, Yaffe MJ, et al.; DMIST Investigators Group. Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST. Radiology 2008; 246:376-383
13. 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 2007; 244: 708-717 (Pubitemid 47292081)
14. Skaane P, Skjennalf 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 2004; 232:197-204 (Pubitemid 38787838)
15. Vigeland E, Klaasen H, Klingen TA, Hofvind S, Skaane P. 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 2008; 18:183-191 (Pubitemid 351217291)
16. Del Turco MR, Mantellini P, Ciatto S, et al. Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparative accuracy in concurrent screening cohorts. AJR 2007; 189:860-866 (Pubitemid 47479768)
17. Heddson B, Ronnow K, Olsson M, Miller D. Digital versus screen-film mammography: a retrospective comparison in a population-based screening program. Eur J Radiol 2007; 64:419-425 (Pubitemid 350116481)
18. American College of Radiology. Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS), 4th ed. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 2003
19. Shaw CM, Flanagan FL, Fenlon HM, McNicholas MM. Consensus review of discordant findings maximizes cancer detection rate in double-reader screening mammography: Irish National Breast Screening Program experience. Radiology 2009; 250:354-362
20. Otten JD, Karssemeijer N, Hendriks JH, et al. Effect of recall rate on earlier screen detection of breast cancers based on the Dutch performance indicators. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005; 97:748-754 (Pubitemid 40872381)
21. Smith-Bindman R, Chu PW, Miglioretti DL, et al. Comparison of screening mammography in the United States and the United Kingdom. JAMA 2003; 290:2129-2137 [Erratum in JAMA 2004; 291:824] (Pubitemid 37432973)