Digital mammography screening: Does age influence the detection rates of low-, intermediate-, and high-grade ductal carcinoma in situ?

Radiology

Volumn 278, Issue 3, 2016, Pages 707-713

  Weigel, Stefanie ^a   Hense, Hans W ^a,b   Heidrich, Jan ^b   Berkemeyer, Shoma ^a   Heindel, Walter ^a   Heidinger, Oliver ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MÜNSTER   (Germany)

^b Epidemiological Cancer Registry for the State of North Rhine Westphalia   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGE; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER GRADING; CANCER SCREENING; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTRADUCTAL CARCINOMA; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MIDDLE AGED; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CARCINOMA IN SITU; CARCINOMA, DUCTAL, BREAST; GERMANY; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; PATHOLOGY; PROCEDURES; PROGNOSIS; RADIOGRAPHY; REGISTER;

AGED; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CARCINOMA IN SITU; CARCINOMA, DUCTAL, BREAST; FEMALE; GERMANY; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM GRADING; PROGNOSIS; REGISTRIES; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES;

EID: 84959431602     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2015150322     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Virnig BA, Tuttle TM, Shamliyan T, Kane RL. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a systematic review of incidence, treatment, and outcomes. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010;102(3):170-178.
2. Bluekens AM, Holland R, Karssemeijer N, Broeders MJM, Den Heeten GJ. Comparison of digital screening mammography and screen-film mammography in the early detection of clinically relevant cancers: a multicenter study. Radiology 2012;265(3):707-714.
3. Weigel S, Berkemeyer S, Girnus R, Sommer A, Lenzen H, Heindel W. Digital mammography screening with photon-counting technique: can a high diagnostic performance be realized at low mean glandular dose? Radiology 2014;271(2):345-355.
4. Perry N, Broeders M, De Wolf C, eds. European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. 4th ed. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2006.
5. Lynge E, Ponti A, James T, et al. Variation in detection of ductal carcinoma in situ during screening mammography: a survey within the International Cancer Screening Network. Eur J Cancer 2014;50(1):185-192.
6. De Gelder R, Heijnsdijk EA, Van Ravesteyn NT, Fracheboud J, Draisma G, De Koning HJ. Interpreting overdiagnosis estimates in population-based mammography screening. Epidemiol Rev 2011;33(1):111-121.
7. Jones JL. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of breast cancer: progression of ductal carcinoma in situ: the pathological perspective. Breast Cancer Res 2006;8(2):204.
8. Ponti A, Lynge E, James T, et al. International variation in management of screen-detected ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Eur J Cancer 2014;50(15):2695-2704.
9. World Health Organization. WHO classification of tumors of the breast. Lyon, France: IARC, 2012.
10. Collins LC, Tamimi RM, Baer HJ, Connolly JL, Colditz GA, Schnitt SJ. Outcome of patients with ductal carcinoma in situ untreated after diagnostic biopsy: results from the Nurses' Health Study. Cancer 2005;103(9):1778-1784.
11. Buerger H, Otterbach F, Simon R, et al. Different genetic pathways in the evolution of invasive breast cancer are associated with distinct morphological subtypes. J Pathol 1999;189(4):521-526.
12. Weigel S, Heindel W, Heidinger O, Berkemeyer S, Hense HW. Digital mammography screening: association between detection rate and nuclear grade of ductal carcinoma in situ. Radiology 2014;271(1):38-44.
13. Nelson HDTK, Naik A, Bougatsos C, Chan B, Nygren P, Humphrey L. Screening for Breast Cancer: Systematic Evidence Review Update for the U. S. Preventive Services Task Force. Evidence Review Update No. 74. AHRQ Publication No. 10-05142-EF-1. Rockville, Md: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2009.
14. Ernster VL, Ballard-Barbash R, Barlow WE, et al. Detection of ductal carcinoma in situ in women undergoing screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94(20):1546-1554.
15. World Health Organization. WHO position paper on mammography screening. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 2014.
16. Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening. The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Lancet 2012;380(9855):1778-1786.
17. Puliti D, Duffy SW, Miccinesi G, et al. Overdiagnosis in mammographic screening for breast cancer in Europe: a literature review. J Med Screen 2012;19(Suppl 1):42-56.
18. Timpe L, Berkemeyer S, Puesken M, Tio J, Heindel W, Weigel S. Rates of presurgical underestimation of breast cancer after standardized assessment of breast calcifications. Rofo 2015;187(6):445-449.
19. Elmore JG, Longton GM, Carney PA, et al. Diagnostic concordance among pathologists interpreting breast biopsy specimens. JAMA 2015;313(11):1122-1132.
20. Weigel S, Decker T, Korsching E, Hungermann D, Böcker W, Heindel W. Calcifications in digital mammographic screening: improvement of early detection of invasive breast cancers? Radiology 2010;255(3):738-745.
21. Peters G, Jones CM, Daniels K. Why is microcalcification missed on mammography? J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2013;57(1):32-37.
22. Pollán M, Ascunce N, Ederra M, et al. Mammographic density and risk of breast cancer according to tumor characteristics and mode of detection: a Spanish population-based case-control study. Breast Cancer Res 2013;15(1):R9.