Calcifications in digital mammographic screening: Improvement of early detection of invasive breast cancers?

Radiology

Volumn 255, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 738-745

  Weigel, Stefanie ^a   Decker, Thomas ^a   Korsching, Eberhard ^a   Hungermann, Daniela ^a   Böcker, Werner ^a   Heindel, Walter ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL MÜNSTER   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST CALCIFICATION; BREAST CANCER; CANCER INVASION; CANCER SCREENING; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; EARLY DIAGNOSIS; FEMALE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; TUMOR VOLUME;

AGED; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CALCINOSIS; CHI-SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; FEMALE; HUMANS; LYMPHATIC METASTASIS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM INVASIVENESS; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; STATISTICS, NONPARAMETRIC;

EID: 77952688314     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.10091173     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. 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(3):708-717. (Pubitemid 47292081)
2. Van Ongeval Ch. Digital mammography for screening and diagnosis of breast cancer: an overview. JBR-BTR 2007;90(3):163-166. (Pubitemid 47066231)
3. 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(3):873-880.
4. 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 Am J Roentgenol 2002;179(3):671-677. (Pubitemid 34919579)
5. 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(3):877-884. (Pubitemid 37467596)
6. 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 2004;232(1):197-204. (Pubitemid 38787838)
7. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2005;353(17):1773-1783.
8. 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 2005;46(7):679-689.
9. 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(1):183-191.
10. 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 2007;189(4):860-866.
11. Evans AJ, Pinder SE, Ellis IO, Wilson AR. Screen detected ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS): overdiagnosis or an obligate precursor of invasive disease? J Med Screen 2001;8(3):149-151.
12. Duffy SW, Agbaje O, Tabar L, et al. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of breast cancer: estimates of overdiagnosis from two trials of mammographic screening for breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 2005;7(6):258-265.
13. McCann J, Treasure P, Duffy S. Modelling the impact of detecting and treating ductal carcinoma in situ in a breast screening programme. J Med Screen 2004;11(3):117-125. (Pubitemid 39274092)
14. Evans AJ, Blanks RG. Should breast screening programmes limit their detection of ductal carcinoma in situ? Clin Radiol 2002;57(12):1086-1089.
15. Perry NM, Broeders M, de Wolf C, et al, eds. European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. 4th ed. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2006.
16. Bundesmantelvertrag - Ärzte/Ersatzkassen über besondere Versorgungsaufträge im Rahmen des Programms zur Früherkennung von Brustkrebs durch Mammographie-Screening. Anlage 9.2 Versorgung im Rahmen des Programms zur Früherkennung von Brustkrebs durch Mammographie-Screening. Dtsch Arztebl 2004;4(23):16-44.
17. Weigel S, Batzler WU, Decker T, Hense HW, Heindel W. First epidemiological analysis of breast cancer incidence and tumor characteristics after implementation of population-based digital mammography screening. RoFo 2009;181(12):1144-1150.
18. Sommer A, Lenzen H, Blaser D, Ehlers SE, Schopphoven S, John C. Guideline for the additional test positions according to the EPQC 4th Edition for Digital Mammography systems [in German]. Rofo 2009;181(9):845-850.
19. American College of Radiology. Illustrated breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS). 3rd ed. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology, 1998.
20. Wells CA, Amendoeira I, Apostolikas N, et al. Quality assurance guidelines for pathology - Open biopsy and resection specimens. In: Perry NM, Broeders M, de Wolf C, et al, eds. European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. 4th ed. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2006;256-311.
21. Elston CW, Ellis IO. Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology 1991;19(5):403-410.
22. Elston CW, Ellis IO. Assessment of histological grade. In: Systemic pathology, the breast. 3rd ed. London, England: Churchill Livingstone, 1998;365-384.
23. International Union Against Cancer. TNM classification of malignant tumors. 6th ed. New York, NY: Wiley, 2002.
24. American Joint Committee on Cancer. AJCC cancer staging manual. New York, NY: Springer, 2002.
25. Sickles EA. Mammographic features of 300 consecutive nonpalpable breast cancers. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1986;146(4):661-663.
26. Stomper PC, Connolly JL. Mammographic features predicting an extensive intraductal component in early-stage infiltrating ductal carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1992;158(2):269-272.
27. Burnside ES, Ochsner JE, Fowler KJ, et al. Use of microcalcification descriptors in BI-RADS 4th edition to stratify risk of malignancy. Radiology 2007;242(2):388-395.
28. Venkatesan A, Chu P, Kerlikowske K, Sickles EA, Smith-Bindman R. Positive predictive value of specific mammographic findings according to reader and patient variables. Radiology 2009;250(3):648-657.
29. Stomper PC, Geradts J, Edge SB, Levine EG. Mammographic predictors of the presence and size of invasive carcinomas associated with malignant microcalcification lesions without a mass. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;181(6):1679-1684. (Pubitemid 37466553)
30. Pisano ED, Hendrick RE, Yaffe MJ, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST. Radiology 2008;246(2):376-383.
31. Rakha EA, El-Sayed ME, Lee AH, et al. Prognostic significance of Nottingham histologic grade in invasive breast carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2008;26(19):3153-3158.
32. Evans AJ, Pinder SE, Burrell HC, Ellis IO, Wilson AR. Detecting which invasive cancers at mammographic screening saves lives? J Med Screen 2001;8(2):86-90.
33. Heddson B, Rönnow K, Olsson M, Miller D. Digital versus screen-film mammography: a retrospective comparison in a population-based screening program. Eur J Radiol 2007;64(3):419-425. (Pubitemid 350116481)
34. 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 2009;253(2):353-358.
35. Hambly NM, McNicholas MM, Phelan N, Hargaden GC, O'Doherty A, Flanagan FL. Comparison of digital mammography and screen-film mammography in breast cancer screening: a review in the Irish breast screening program. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;193(4):1010-1018.
36. Quality Determinants of Mammography Guidelines Panel. Quality determinants of mammography. Rockville, Md: United States Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, 1994;78-86.
37. Feig SA, D'Orsi CJ, Hendrick RE, et al. American College of Radiology guidelines for breast cancer screening. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998;171(1):29-33.
38. Schell MJ, Yankaskas BC, Ballard-Barbash R, et al. Evidence-based target recall rates for screening mammography. Radiology 2007;243(3):681-689. (Pubitemid 46799420)
39. American College of Radiology. Illustrated breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS). 4th ed. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology, 2003.