Breast cancer: Missed interval and screening-detected cancer at full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography - Results from a retrospective review

Radiology

Volumn 264, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 378-386

  Hoff, Solveig R ^a,b   Abrahamsen, Anne Line ^c   Samset, Jon Helge ^a   Vigeland, Einar ^c   Klepp, Olbjørn ^a,b   Hofvind, Solveig ^d  

^a Møre and Romsdal Hospital Trust   (Norway)

^b NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Norway)

^c VESTFOLD HOSPITAL TRUST   (Norway)

^d CANCER REGISTRY OF NORWAY   (Norway)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST CALCIFICATION; BREAST CANCER; CANCER SCREENING; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; FEMALE; FULL FIELD DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SCREEN FILM MAMMOGRAPHY; TUMOR VOLUME;

AGED; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CHI-SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; CONFIDENCE INTERVALS; DIAGNOSTIC ERRORS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM INVASIVENESS; NORWAY; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; REGISTRIES; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES;

EID: 84864347202     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.12112074     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Moberg K, Grundström H, Törnberg S, et al. Two models for radiological reviewing of interval cancers. J Med Screen 1999;6(1):35-39. (Pubitemid 29164743)
2. Ciatto S, Catarzi S, Lamberini MP, et al. Interval breast cancers in screening: the effect of mammography review method on classification. Breast 2007;16(6):646-652. (Pubitemid 350154453)
3. Hofvind S, Skaane P, Vitak B, et al. Influence of review design on percentages of missed interval breast cancers: retrospective study of interval cancers in a population-based screening program. Radiology 2005;237(2):437-443. (Pubitemid 41507877)
4. van Dijck JA, Verbeek AL, Hendriks JH, Holland R. The current detectability of breast cancer in a mammographic screening program. A review of the previous mammograms of interval and screen-detected cancers. Cancer 1993;72(6):1933-1938. (Pubitemid 23262123)
5. Hoff SR, Samset JH, Abrahamsen AL, Vigeland E, Klepp O, Hofvind S. Missed and true interval and screen-detected breast cancers in a population based screening program. Acad Radiol 2011;18(4):454-460.
6. Perry N, Broeders MJ, de Wolf C, Tornberg S, Holland R, von Karsa L. European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. 4th ed. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2006.
7. 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.
8. Skaane P. Studies comparing screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography in breast cancer screening: updated review. Acta Radiol 2009;50(1):3-14.
9. 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.
10. Hofvind S, Geller B, Vacek PM, Thoresen S, Skaane P. Using the European guidelines to evaluate the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program. Eur J Epidemiol 2007;22(7):447-455. (Pubitemid 47222954)
11. 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. (Pubitemid 351217291)
12. D'Orsi CJ, Bassett L, Berg W. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, BI-RADS: Mammography. 4th ed. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology, 2003.
13. Yang WT, Lai CJ, Whitman GJ, et al. Comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection and characterization of simulated small masses. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006;187(6):W576-W581.
14. 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(11):2679-2683. (Pubitemid 36940378)
15. Freer TW, Ulissey MJ. Screening mammography with computer-aided detection: prospective study of 12,860 patients in a community breast center. Radiology 2001;220(3):781-786. (Pubitemid 32799990)
16. Cupples TE, Cunningham JE, Reynolds JC. Impact of computer-aided detection in a regional screening mammography program. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;185(4):944-950.
17. Dean JC, Ilvento CC. Improved cancer detection using computer-aided detection with diagnostic and screening mammography: prospective study of 104 cancers. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006;187(1):20-28. (Pubitemid 46100140)
18. Morton MJ, Whaley DH, Brandt KR, Amrami KK. Screening mammograms: interpretation with computer-aided detection-prospective evaluation. Radiology 2006;239(2):375-383.
19. Gruppo di studio GISMa-SIRM, Chersevani R, Ciatto S, et al. "CADEAT": considerations on the use of CAD (computer-aided diagnosis) in mammography. Radiol Med 2010;115(4):563-570.
20. Larsen IK, Småstuen M, Johannesen TB, et al. Data quality at the Cancer Registry of Norway: an overview of comparability, completeness, validity and timeliness. Eur J Cancer 2009;45(7):1218-1231.
21. Utzon-Frank N, Vejborg I, von Euler-Chelpin M, Lynge E. Balancing sensitivity and specificity: sixteen year's of experience from the mammography screening programme in Copenhagen, Denmark. Cancer Epidemiol 2011;35(5):393-398.
22. Hofvind S, Vacek PM, Skelly J, Weaver DL, Geller BM. Comparing screening mammography for early breast cancer detection in Vermont and Norway. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008;100(15):1082-1091.
23. Hofvind S, Yankaskas BC, Bulliard JL, Klabunde CN, Fracheboud J. Comparing interval breast cancer rates in Norway and North Carolina: results and challenges. J Med Screen 2009;16(3):131-139.