Dataset Information

Comparison of Digital and Screen-Film Mammography for Breast-Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Digital 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.

Methods

The 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.

Results

Thirteen 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.

Conclusion

The 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.

SUBMITTER: Song SY

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6597401 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of Digital and Screen-Film Mammography for Breast-Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Song Soo Yeon SY Park Boyoung B Hong Seri S Kim Min Jung MJ Lee Eun Hye EH Lee Eun Hye EH Jun Jae Kwan JK

Journal of breast cancer 20190601 2

<h4>Purpose</h4>Digital 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.<h4>Methods</h4>The MEDLINE, Embase, and Coc ...[more]

PMID: 31281732

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundOur objective was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the breast cancer detection rate (CDR), invasive CDR, recall rate, and positive predictive value 1 (PPV1) of digital mammography (DM) alone, combined digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and DM, combined DBT and synthetic 2-dimensional mammography (S2D), and DBT alone.MethodsMEDLINE and Embase were searched until April 2020 to identify comparative design studies reporting on patients undergoing routine breast cancer screening. Random effects model proportional meta-analyses estimated CDR, invasive CDR, recall rate, and PPV1. Meta-regression modeling was used to compare imaging modalities. All statistical tests were 2-sided.ResultsForty-two studies reporting on 2 606 296 patients (13 003 breast cancer cases) were included. CDR was highest in combined DBT and DM (6.36 per 1000 screened, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 5.62 to 7.14, P < .001), and combined DBT and S2D (7.40 per 1000 screened, 95% CI = 6.49 to 8.37, P < .001) compared with DM alone (4.68 per 1000 screened, 95% CI = 4.28 to 5.11). Invasive CDR was highest in combined DBT and DM (4.53 per 1000 screened, 95% CI = 3.97 to 5.12, P = .003) and combined DBT and S2D (5.68 per 1000 screened, 95% CI = 4.43 to 7.09, P < .001) compared with DM alone (3.42 per 1000 screened, 95% CI = 3.02 to 3.83). Recall rate was lowest in combined DBT and S2D (42.3 per 1000 screened, 95% CI = 37.4 to 60.4, P<.001). PPV1 was highest in combined DBT and DM (10.0%, 95% CI = 8.0% to 12.0%, P = .004), and combined DBT and S2D (16.0%, 95% CI = 10.0% to 23.0%, P < .001), whereas no difference was detected for DBT alone (7.0%, 95% CI = 6.0% to 8.0%, P = .75) compared with DM alone (7.0%, 95.0% CI = 5.0% to 8.0%).ConclusionsOur findings provide evidence on key performance metrics for DM, DBT alone, combined DBT and DM, and combined DBT and S2D, which may inform optimal application of these modalities for breast cancer screening.

Project description: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.

Project description:To investigate the use of the whole-breast sound speed measurement as a marker of breast density (BD), a known risk factor for breast cancer.As part of an ongoing study of breast cancer detection, 249 patients were scanned with a clinical prototype that operates on the principles of ultrasound tomography. Typically, 40-100 sound speed tomograms were reconstructed from the scan data, corresponding to the entire volume of the breast of each patient. The data were used to estimate the volume averaged sound speed (VASS) of the breast for each patient. The corresponding mammograms were used to calculate mammographic percent density (MPD) using CUMULUS software. Film mammograms were available for 164 patients while 85 digital mammograms were available for the remaining patients. Standard statistical techniques were used to determine associations of breast sound speed with a variety of mammographic measures such as percent density, area of dense tissue, and area of nondense tissue. Furthermore, associations of breast sound speed with continuous variables such as age and weight and dichotomous variables such as parity and menopausal status were also assessed.VASS was found to be significantly associated with MPD. The Spearman correlation coefficient (r(s)) between VASS and MPD was found to be 0.77 and 0.71 for film and digital mammography, respectively. VASS was positively correlated with dense areas by mammography, both digital (r(s) = 0.46) and film (r(s) = 0.56). VASS was negatively associated with nondense area by mammography, both digital (r(s) = -0.58) and film (r(s) = -0.63). BD by all methods was less in postmenopausal than in premenopausal women. The MPD was lower in the postmenopausal group (by 6.6%, p < 0.08, for the digital group and 7.73%, p < 0.007, for the film group). The VASS was also lower in the postmenopausal group (by 15 m∕s, p < 0.001 for the digital group and 8 m∕s, p < 0.08, for the film group). The association of MPD with age was characterized with r(s) = -0.06 (p < 0.6) for digital mammography and r(s) = -0.53 (p < 0.002) for film mammography. For weight, the MPD associations were characterized by r(s) = -0.53 (p < 0.0001) for digital mammography and -0.38 (p < 0.0001) for film mammography. The association of VASS with age was r(s) = -0.33 (p < 0.002) for the digital group and -0.17 (p < 0.03) for the film group. For weight, the relationship was characterized with r(s) = -0.45 (p < 0.001) for the digital group and -0.37 (p < 0.0001) for the film group.The association between VASS and MPD is strong for both film and digital mammography, suggesting that VASS is a viable measure of breast density. This result sets the stage for future work that will focus on directly testing the association of VASS with breast cancer risk.

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.

Dataset Information

Comparison of Digital and Screen-Film Mammography for Breast-Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Comparison of Digital and Screen-Film Mammography for Breast-Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets