Comparative effectiveness of digital versus film-screen mammography in community practice in the United States: A cohort study

Annals of Internal Medicine

Volumn 155, Issue 8, 2011, Pages 493-502

  Kerlikowske, Karla ^a   Hubbard, Rebecca A ^b   Miglioretti, Diana L ^b   Geller, Berta M ^c   Yankaskas, Bonnie C ^d   Lehman, Constance D ^e   Taplin, Stephen H ^f   Sickles, Edward A ^g  

^a SAN FRANCISCO VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b GROUP HEALTH RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^e SEATTLE CANCER CARE ALLIANCE   (United States)

^f NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

^g UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ESTROGEN RECEPTOR;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; BREAST CARCINOMA; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY; CLIMACTERIUM; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; FILM SCREEN MAMMOGRAPHY; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INTRADUCTAL CARCINOMA; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; MENOPAUSE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PERFORMANCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UNITED STATES;

EID: 80054717098     PISSN: 00034819     EISSN: 15393704     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00005     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Mammography Quality Standards Act and Program. Accessed at www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/MammographyQualityStandardsActandProgram/default.htm. on 17 October 2010.
2. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, Yaffe M, Baum JK, Acharyya S, et al; Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) Investigators Group. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breastcancer screening. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:1773-83.
3. Pisano ED, Hendrick RE, Yaffe MJ, Baum JK, Acharyya S, Cormack JB, et al; DMIST Investigators Group. Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST. Radiology. 2008;246:376-83.
4. Lewin JM, D'Orsi CJ, Hendrick RE, Moss LJ, Isaacs PK, Karellas A, et al. Clinical comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection of breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002;179:671-7.
5. Skaane P. Studies comparing screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography in breast cancer screening: updated review. Acta Radiol. 2009;50: 3-14.
6. 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; 244:708-17.
7. Sala M, Comas M, Maciǎ F, Martinez J, Casamitjana M, Castells X. Implementation of digital mammography in a population-based breast cancer screening program: effect of screening round on recall rate and cancer detection. Radiology. 2009;252:31-9.
8. Vinnicombe S, Pinto Pereira SM, McCormack VA, Shiel S, Perry N, Dos Santos Silva IM. Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparison within the UK breast screening program and systematic review of published data. Radiology. 2009;251:347-58.
9. Karssemeijer N, Bluekens AM, Beijerinck D, Deurenberg JJ, Beekman M, Visser R, et al. Breast cancer screening results 5 years after introduction of digital mammography in a population-based screening program. Radiology. 2009;253: 353-8.
10. Ballard-Barbash R, Taplin SH, Yankaskas BC, Ernster VL, Rosenberg RD, Carney PA, et al. Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium: a national mammography screening and outcomes database. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1997;169: 1001-8.
11. Ernster VL, Ballard-Barbash R, Barlow WE, Zheng Y, Weaver DL, Cutter G, et al. Detection of ductal carcinoma in situ in women undergoing screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94:1546-54.
12. American College of Radiology. The American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS). 4th ed. Reston, VA: American Coll Radiology; 2003.
13. Yankaskas BC, Taplin SH, Ichikawa L, Geller BM, Rosenberg RD, Carney PA, et al. Association between mammography timing and measures of screening performance in the United States. Radiology. 2005;234:363-73.
14. American Joint Committee on Cancer. Manual for Staging of Cancer. 6th ed. Philadelphia: JB Lippincott; 2002.
15. Graubard BI, Korn EL. Predictive margins with survey data. Biometrics. 1999;55:652-9.
16. Lane PW, Nelder JA. Analysis of covariance and standardization as instances of prediction. Biometrics. 1982;38:613-21.
17. Kerlikowske K, Miglioretti DL, Ballard-Barbash R, Weaver DL, Buist DS, Barlow WE, et al. Prognostic characteristics of breast cancer among postmenopausal hormone users in a screened population. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:4314-21.
18. Carney PA, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC, Kerlikowske K, Rosenberg R, Rutter CM, et al. Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138:168-75.
19. Neuhaus JM, Kalbfleisch JD. Between- and within-cluster covariate effects in the analysis of clustered data. Biometrics. 1998;54:638-45.
20. Ichikawa LE, Barlow WE, Anderson ML, Taplin SH, Geller BM, Brenner RJ; National Cancer Institute-sponsored Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Time trends in radiologists' interpretive performance at screening mammography from the community-based Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, 1996-2004. Radiology. 2010;256:74-82.
21. Kerlikowske K. The mammogram that cried Wolfe [Editorial]. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:297-300.
22. Roubidoux MA, Bailey JE, Wray LA, Helvie MA. Invasive cancers detected after breast cancer screening yielded a negative result: relationship of mammographic density to tumor prognostic factors. Radiology. 2004;230:42-8.
23. Buist DS, Porter PL, Lehman C, Taplin SH, White E. Factors contributing to mammography failure in women aged 40-49 years. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004; 96:1432-40.
24. Kerlikowske K, Ichikawa L, Miglioretti DL, Buist DS, Vacek PM, Smith- Bindman R, et al; National Institutes of Health Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Longitudinal measurement of clinical mammographic breast density to improve estimation of breast cancer risk. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99:386-95.
25. Farhat GN, Walker R, Buist DS, Onega T, Kerlikowske K. Changes in invasive breast cancer and ductal carcinoma in situ rates in relation to the decline in hormone therapy use. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:5140-6.
26. Jiang Y, Metz CE. BI-RADS data should not be used to estimate ROC curves [Editorial]. Radiology. 2010;256:29-31.
27. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, Frankel SD, Ominsky SH, Sickles EA, et al. Variability and accuracy in mammographic interpretation using the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;90:1801-9.
28. Ciatto S, Houssami N, Apruzzese A, Bassetti E, Brancato B, Carozzi F, et al. Categorizing breast mammographic density: intra- and interobserver reproducibility of BI-RADS density categories. Breast. 2005;14:269-75.
29. Buist DS, Anderson ML, Haneuse SJ, Sickles EA, Smith RA, Carney PA, et al. Influence of annual interpretive volume on screening mammography performance in the United States. Radiology. 2011;259:72-84.
30. Smith-Bindman R, Chu P, Miglioretti DL, Quale C, Rosenberg RD, Cutter G, et al. Physician predictors of mammographic accuracy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97:358-67.