Digital mammography may be more effective than screen-film mammography in contemporary screening practice in mobile units. The data indicate that digital mammography depicts more tumors than does screen-film mammography, especially lesions seen as microcalcifications. The potential association with improved outcome warrants further study.

Detection of second breast cancers in the asymptomatic phase leads to detection of early-stage cancer and improves relative survival by between 27% and 47%.

Breast core needle biopsy (CNB) is used for sampling breast lesions in both the screening and diagnostic context. We present the accuracy of breast CNB from a consecutive series of 4035 core biopsies, using methods that minimise selection and verification bias. We calculate accuracy and underestimation of malignancy for both automated (14G) and directional vacuum-assisted (11G) CNB performed under stereotactic or sonographic guidance. Overall sensitivity of CNB is 94.2% (92.9-95.5%) and specificity is 88.1% (86.6-89.6%), positive and negative predictive values are 84.8% (82.9-86.7%) and 95.6% (94.6-96.6%), respectively. In sampling microcalcification, the overall underestimation of malignancy is 26.6% (22.9-30.3%): underestimation is significantly higher for automated CB relative to VAB (chi2 ((df = 1)) = 8.90 , P = 0.002), the absolute difference in underestimation being 14% (5-23%); sensitivity is higher for VAB than automated CB (chi2 ((df = 1)) = 3.28, P = 0.06) but specificity is significantly higher for automated CB (14G) relative to VAB (11G) (chi2 ((df = 1)) = 6.37, P = 0.01), and the overall accuracy of the two methods is similar. Sensitivity of CNB improved with experience (over time and in relation to caseload). Accuracy was not substantially affected by lesion palpability or image-guidance method, and was similar for both masses and calcification but lower for lesions depicted as distortions on mammography. Inadequacy was very low and decreased with greater operator caseload, and was not associated with core gauge or image-guidance method. False negatives occurred in 4.4% (3.4-5.4%) of cases, and where core histology was benign but discordant with (suspicious) imaging and/or clinical findings the likelihood of malignancy was 33.1% (18.5-47.7%), emphasising the importance of correlating all test information in breast diagnosis.

No abstract

Second reading is effective in detecting a limited number of additional cancer cases. Tumour stage (one-third over 1 cm in diameter) and review findings (high rate of "screening errors" and BI-RADS R4b-c categories) suggest that second reading detects small "difficult cases" as well as larger cancers missed due to fatigue or loss of attention. Second reading reduces screening specificity to a minor extent, and since cancer detection at second reading seems cost-effective the procedure is recommendable in routine practice.