Impact of transition from analog screening mammography to digital screening mammography on screening outcome in The Netherlands: A population-based study

Annals of Oncology

Volumn 23, Issue 12, 2012, Pages 3098-3103

  Nederend, J ^a   Duijm, L E M ^a   Louwman, M W J ^b   Groenewoud, J H ^c   Donkers Van Rossum, A B ^a   Voogd, A C ^b,d  

^a CATHARINA HOSPITAL   (Netherlands)

^b The Netherlands   (Netherlands)

^c ROTTERDAM UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED SCIENCES   (Netherlands)

^d MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Breast cancer; Digital mammography; Positive predictive value; Referral rate; Screening mammography

Indexed keywords

ESTROGEN RECEPTOR; PROGESTERONE RECEPTOR;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST BIOPSY; BREAST CANCER; BREAST CARCINOMA; CANCER GRADING; CANCER SCREENING; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INTRADUCTAL CARCINOMA; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASTECTOMY; NETHERLANDS; PERCUTANEOUS BIOPSY; POPULATION RESEARCH; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCREEN FIELD MAMMOGRAPHY; STEREOTACTIC PROCEDURE;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; NETHERLANDS; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT;

EID: 84867329523     PISSN: 09237534     EISSN: 15698041     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mds146     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Dowling EC, Klabunde C, Patnick J et al. Breast and cervical cancer screening programme implementation in 16 countries. J Med Screen 2010; 17: 139-146.
2. 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: 1773-1783.
3. 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.
4. 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: 860-866.
5. Hambly NM, McNicholas MM, Phelan N et al. 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: 1010-1018.
6. Bluekens AM, Karssemeijer N, Beijerinck D et al. Consequences of digital mammography in population-based breast cancer screening: initial changes and long-term impact on referral rates. Eur Radiol 2010; 20: 2067-2073.
7. 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: 353-358.
8. de Gelder R, Fracheboud J, Heijnsdijk EA et al. Digital mammography screening: weighing reduced mortality against increased overdiagnosis. Prev Med 2011; 53: 134-140.
9. Duijm LE, Groenewoud JH, Fracheboud J et al. Additional double reading of screening mammograms by radiologic technologists: impact on screening performance parameters. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007; 99: 1162-1170.
10. Duijm LE, Groenewoud JH, Hendriks JH et al. Independent double reading of screening mammograms in The Netherlands: effect of arbitration following reader disagreements. Radiology 2004; 231: 564-570.
11. Maes RM, Dronkers DJ, Hendriks JH et al. Do non-specific minimal signs in a biennial mammographic breast cancer screening programme need further diagnostic assessment? Br J Radiol 1997; 70: 34-38.
12. D'Orsi C, Mendelson E, Ikeda D et al. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: ACR BI-RADS - Breast Imaging Atlas. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology 2003.
13. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, 7th edition. New York: Springer 2010.
14. Heddson B, Ronnow K, Olsson M et al. Digital versus screen-film mammography: a retrospective comparison in a population-based screening program. Eur J Radiol 2007; 64: 419-425.
15. Glynn CG, Farria DM, Monsees BS et al. Effect of transition to digital mammography on clinical outcomes. Radiology 2011; 260: 664-670.
16. Sala M, Comas M, Macia F et al. 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: 31-39.
17. Vinnicombe S, Pinto Pereira SM, McCormack VA et al. Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparison within the UK breast screening program and systematic review of published data. Radiology 2009; 251: 347-358.
18. Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C et al. European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth edition-summary document. Ann Oncol 2008; 19: 614-622.
19. Sala M, Salas D, Belvis F et al. Reduction in false-positive results after introduction of digital mammography: analysis from four population-based breast cancer screening programs in Spain. Radiology 2011; 258: 388-395.
20. Fracheboud J, de Koning HJ, Boer R et al. Nationwide breast cancer screening programme fully implemented in The Netherlands. Breast 2001; 10: 6-11.
21. Brewer NT, Salz T, Lillie SE. Systematic review: the long-term effects of falsepositive mammograms. Ann Intern Med 2007; 146: 502-510.
22. van der Steeg AF, Keyzer-Dekker CM, de Vries J et al. Effect of abnormal screening mammogram on quality of life. Br J Surg 2011; 98: 537-542.
23. Vigeland E, Klaasen H, Klingen TA 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. Eur Radiol 2008; 18: 183-191.
24. Feeley L, Kiernan D, Mooney T et al. Digital mammography in a screening programme and its implications for pathology: a comparative study. J Clin Pathol 2011; 64: 215-219.
25. Paci E, Duffy SW, Giorgi D et al. Are breast cancer screening programmes increasing rates of mastectomy? Observational study. BMJ 2002; 325: 418.
26. Jorgensen KJ, Keen JD, Gotzsche PC. Is mammographic screening justifiable considering its substantial overdiagnosis rate and minor effect on mortality? Radiology 2011; 260: 621-627.
27. de Gelder R, Heijnsdijk EA, van Ravesteyn NT et al. Interpreting overdiagnosis estimates in population-based mammography screening. Epidemiol Rev 2011; 33: 111-121.
28. Kopans DB, Smith RA, Duffy SW. Mammographic screening and 'overdiagnosis'. Radiology 2011; 260: 616-620.