Dataset Information

Detection and interval cancer rates during the transition from screen-film to digital mammography in population-based screening.

ABSTRACT: Between 2003 and 2010 digital mammography (DM) gradually replaced screen-film mammography (SFM) in the Dutch breast cancer screening programme (BCSP). Previous studies showed increases in detection rate (DR) after the transition to DM. However, national interval cancer rates (ICR) have not yet been reported.We assessed programme sensitivity and specificity during the transition period to DM, analysing nationwide data on screen-detected and interval cancers. Data of 7.3 million screens in women aged 49-74, between 2004 and 2011, were linked to the Netherlands Cancer Registry to obtain data on interval cancers. Age-adjusted DRs, ICRs and recall rates (RR) per 1000 screens and programme sensitivity and specificity were calculated by year, age and screening modality.41,662 screen-detected and 16,160 interval cancers were analysed. The DR significantly increased from 5.13 (95% confidence interval (CI):5.00-5.30) in 2004 to 6.34 (95% CI:6.15-6.47) in 2011, for both in situ (2004:0.73;2011:1.24) and invasive cancers (2004:4.42;2011:5.07), whereas the ICR remained stable (2004: 2.16 (95% CI2.06-2.25);2011: 2.13 (95% CI:2.04-2.22)). The RR changed significantly from 14.0 to 21.4. Programme sensitivity significantly increased, mainly between ages 49-59, from 70.0% (95% CI:68.9-71.2) to 74.4% (95% CI:73.5-75.4) whereas specificity slightly declined (2004:99.1% (95% CI:99.09-99.13);2011:98.5% (95% CI:98.45-98.50)). The overall DR was significantly higher for DM than for SFM (6.24;5.36) as was programme sensitivity (73.6%;70.1%), the ICR was similar (2.19;2.20) and specificity was significantly lower for DM (98.5%;98.9%).During the transition from SFM to DM, there was a significant rise in DR and a stable ICR, leading to increased programme sensitivity. Although the recall rate increased, programme specificity remained high compared to other countries. These findings indicate that the performance of DM in a nationwide screening programme is not inferior to, and may be even better, than that of SFM.

SUBMITTER: Sankatsing VDV

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5839006 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Detection and interval cancer rates during the transition from screen-film to digital mammography in population-based screening.

Sankatsing Valérie D V VDV Fracheboud Jacques J de Munck Linda L Broeders Mireille J M MJM van Ravesteyn Nicolien T NT Heijnsdijk Eveline A M EAM Verbeek André L M ALM Otten Johannes D M JDM Pijnappel Ruud M RM Siesling Sabine S de Koning Harry J HJ

BMC cancer 20180305 1

<h4>Background</h4>Between 2003 and 2010 digital mammography (DM) gradually replaced screen-film mammography (SFM) in the Dutch breast cancer screening programme (BCSP). Previous studies showed increases in detection rate (DR) after the transition to DM. However, national interval cancer rates (ICR) have not yet been reported.<h4>Methods</h4>We assessed programme sensitivity and specificity during the transition period to DM, analysing nationwide data on screen-detected and interval cancers. Dat ...[more]

PMID: 29506487

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDigital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) improves breast cancer (BC) detection compared to mammography, however, it is unknown whether this reduces interval cancer rate (ICR) at follow-up.MethodsUsing individual participant data (IPD) from DBT screening studies (identified via periodic literature searches July 2016 to November 2019) we performed an IPD meta-analysis. We estimated ICR for DBT-screened participants and the difference in pooled ICR for DBT and mammography-only screening, and compared interval BC characteristics. Two-stage meta-analysis (study-specific estimation, pooled synthesis) of ICR included random-effects, adjusting for study and age, and was estimated in age and density subgroups. Comparative screening sensitivity was calculated using screen-detected and interval BC data.FindingsFour prospective DBT studies, from European population-based programs, contributed IPD for 66,451 DBT-screened participants: age-adjusted pooled ICR was 13.17/10,000 (95%CI: 8.25-21.02). Pooled ICR was higher in the high-density (21.08/10,000; 95%CI: 6.71-66.27) than the low-density (8.63/10,000; 95%CI: 5.25-14.192) groups (P = 0.03) however estimates did not differ across age-groups (P = 0.32). Based on two studies that also provided data for 153,800 mammography screens (age-adjusted ICR 17.69/10,000; 95%CI: 13.22-23.66), DBT's pooled ICR was 16.83/10,000 (95%CI: 11.89-23.82). Comparative meta-analysis showed a non-significant difference in ICR (-0.44/10,000; 95%CI: -11.00-10.11) and non-significant difference in screening sensitivity (6.79%; 95%CI: -0.73-14.87%) between DBT and DM but a significant pooled difference in cancer detection rate of 33.49/10,000 (95%CI: 23.88-43.10). Distribution of interval BC prognostic characteristics did not differ between screening modalities except that those occurring in DBT-screened participants were significantly more likely to be negative for axillary-node metastases (P = 0.005).InterpretationAlthough heterogeneity in ICR estimates and few datasets limit recommendations, there was no difference between DBT and mammography in pooled ICR despite DBT increasing cancer detection.

Project description:PurposeDigital mammography (DM) has replaced screen-film mammography (SFM). However, findings of comparisons between the performance indicators of DM and SFM for breast-cancer screening have been inconsistent. Moreover, the summarized results from studies comparing the performance of screening mammography according to device type vary over time. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the performance of DM and SFM using recently published data.MethodsThe MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for paired studies, cohorts, and randomized controlled trials published through 2018 that compared the performance of DM and SFM. All studies comparing the diagnostic accuracy of DM and SFM in asymptomatic, average-risk women aged 40 years and older were included. Two reviewers independently assessed the study quality and extracted the data.ResultsThirteen studies were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity (DM, 0.76 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.70-0.81]; SFM, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.70-0.81]), specificity (DM, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.94-0.97]; SFM, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.94-0.98]), and area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (DM, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.92-0.96]; SFM, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.89-0.94]) were similar for both DM and SFM. The pooled screening performance indicators reinforced superior accuracy of full-field DM, which is a more advanced type of mammography, than SFM. The advantage of DM appeared greater among women aged 50 years or older. There was high heterogeneity among studies in the pooled sensitivity, specificity, and overall diagnostic accuracy estimates. Stratifying by study design (prospective or retrospective) and removing studies with a 2-year or greater follow-up period resulted in homogeneous overall diagnostic accuracy estimates.ConclusionThe breast-cancer screening performance of DM is similar to that of SFM. The diagnostic performance of DM depends on the study design, and, in terms of performance, full-field DM is superior to SFM, unlike computed radiography systems.

Project description:PurposeTo evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening strategies in which MR imaging and screen-film mammography were used, alone and in combination, in women with BRCA1 mutations.Materials and methodsBecause this study did not involve primary data collection from individual patients, institutional review board approval was not needed. By using a simulation model, we compared three annual screening strategies for a cohort of 25-year-old BRCA1 mutation carriers, as follows: (a) screen-film mammography, (b) MR imaging, and (c) combined MR imaging and screen-film mammography (combined screening). The model was used to estimate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and lifetime costs. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated. Input parameters were obtained from the medical literature, existing databases, and calibration. Costs (2007 U.S. dollars) and quality-of-life adjustments were derived from Medicare reimbursement rates and the medical literature. Sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of uncertainty in parameter estimates on model results.ResultsIn the base-case analysis, annual combined screening was most effective (44.62 QALYs), and had the highest cost ($110973), followed by annual MR imaging alone (44.50 QALYs, $108641), and annual mammography alone (44.46 QALYs, $100336). Adding annual MR imaging to annual mammographic screening cost $69125 for each additional QALY gained. Sensitivity analysis indicated that, when the screening MR imaging cost increased to $960 (base case, $577), or breast cancer risk by age 70 years decreased below 58% (base case, 65%), or the sensitivity of combined screening decreased below 76% (base case, 94%), the cost of adding MR imaging to mammography exceeded $100000 per QALY.ConclusionAnnual combined screening provides the greatest life expectancy and is likely cost-effective when the value placed on gaining an additional QALY is in the range of $50000-$100000.Supplemental materialhttp://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.09091086/-/DC1.

Project description:After the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved computer-aided detection (CAD) for mammography in 1998, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) provided increased payment in 2002, CAD technology disseminated rapidly. Despite sparse evidence that CAD improves accuracy of mammographic interpretations and costs over $400 million a year, CAD is currently used for most screening mammograms in the United States.To measure performance of digital screening mammography with and without CAD in US community practice.We compared the accuracy of digital screening mammography interpreted with (n = 495 818) vs without (n = 129 807) CAD from 2003 through 2009 in 323 973 women. Mammograms were interpreted by 271 radiologists from 66 facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Linkage with tumor registries identified 3159 breast cancers in 323 973 women within 1 year of the screening.Mammography performance (sensitivity, specificity, and screen-detected and interval cancers per 1000 women) was modeled using logistic regression with radiologist-specific random effects to account for correlation among examinations interpreted by the same radiologist, adjusting for patient age, race/ethnicity, time since prior mammogram, examination year, and registry. Conditional logistic regression was used to compare performance among 107 radiologists who interpreted mammograms both with and without CAD.Screening performance was not improved with CAD on any metric assessed. Mammography sensitivity was 85.3% (95% CI, 83.6%-86.9%) with and 87.3% (95% CI, 84.5%-89.7%) without CAD. Specificity was 91.6% (95% CI, 91.0%-92.2%) with and 91.4% (95% CI, 90.6%-92.0%) without CAD. There was no difference in cancer detection rate (4.1 in 1000 women screened with and without CAD). Computer-aided detection did not improve intraradiologist performance. Sensitivity was significantly decreased for mammograms interpreted with vs without CAD in the subset of radiologists who interpreted both with and without CAD (odds ratio, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.29-0.97).Computer-aided detection does not improve diagnostic accuracy of mammography. These results suggest that insurers pay more for CAD with no established benefit to women.

Dataset Information

Detection and interval cancer rates during the transition from screen-film to digital mammography in population-based screening.

Publications

Detection and interval cancer rates during the transition from screen-film to digital mammography in population-based screening.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets