Digital Compared with Screen-Film Mammography: Measures of Diagnostic Accuracy among Women Screened in the Ontario Breast Screening Program

Abstract

Given the 38% lower sensitivity of CR imaging systems compared with SFM, programs should assess the continued use of this technology for breast screening.

Qualitative Versus Quantitative Mammographic Breast Density Assessment: Applications for the US and Abroad

“…As demonstrated by studies by Pisano and Prummel, sensitivity does differ between film-screen and FFDM [88,89]. Furthermore, women in the highest SCC category have approximately 17-fold risk of being diagnosed with an interval breast cancer compared to women in the lowest SCC category [6].…”

Is Clinical Breast Examination Important for Breast Cancer Detection?

“…The study was performed during a period of major changes in imaging techniques. Mammography evolved from analog techniques at the beginning of the study period to computed radiology techniques by the end of the period, which could have led to a higher number of cancers being detected by mammography in the late period of the study 49 ; however, digital radiology systems were acquired just after the period covered by this present study. Similarly, the bus examinations were performed using different units showing great variety in spatial and contrast resolution.…”

Digital Compared with Screen-Film Mammography: Measures of Diagnostic Accuracy among Women Screened in the Ontario Breast Screening Program—Evidence that Direct Radiography Is Superior to Computed Radiography for Cancer Detection

“…Importantly, CR performed the worst of all systems included in the OBSP study in terms of sensitivity and interval cancer rates. The authors attribute their results to the physical imaging performance metrics of CR mammography, with CR having a lower modulation transfer function, noise equivalent quanta, signal difference to noise ratio, and phantom image scores than DR (1,11).…”

“…Cancer Institute-funded Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC), with a cancer detection rate of 4.8 (3895 of 816 232) in the OBSP versus a rate of 4.3 (8774 of 2 001 691) in the BCSC per thousand women screened (1,9) during a comparable time frame (2008-2009 for the OBSP and through 2009 for the BCSC). Reported sensitivities for all three cohorts were lower than those reported in the United States, with the BCSC reporting a sensitivity of 84.9% and the Canadian cohort sensitivities ranging from 70.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 66.7%, 74.8%) for CR to 80.2% (95% CI: 79.0%, 81.4%) for DR.…”