Follow-up and final results of the oslo I study comparing screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading

Skaane, Per; Skjennald, Arnulf; Young, K. C.; Egge, Elisabeth; Jebsen, Ingvild N.; Sager, E. M.; Scheel, Birgit; Søvik, Edmund; Ertzaas, A; Hofvind, Solveig; Abdelnoor, Michael

doi:10.1080/02841850500223547

Cited by 50 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 20 publications

(40 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although authors of some studies report a higher rate of screening-detected invasive breast cancer for FFDM (2,(8)(9)(10), other study authors report lower (11) or similar rates for FFDM compared with SFM (12,13). Similarly, conflicting results have been published for the rate of screening-detected ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and the positive predictive value (PPV) of FFDM versus SFM (2,(8)(9)(10)(11)(12).…”

Section: Breast Imaging: Transition From Screen-film To Full-field DImentioning

confidence: 64%

Mammographic Performance in a Population-based Screening Program: Before, during, and after the Transition from Screen-Film to Full-Field Digital Mammography

Hofvind¹,

Skaane²,

Elmore³

et al. 2014

Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

MSHS Purpose:To compare performance measures before, during, and after the transition from screen-film mammography (SFM) to full-field digital mammography (FFDM) in a populationbased screening program. Materials and Methods:No institutional review board approval was required for this analysis involving anonymized data for women aged 50-69 years enrolled in the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program during 1996-2010. The x 2 test was used to examine the equality of proportions of recall rates, positive predictive value of recall examinations and of invasive procedures, in addition to rates of screening-detected and interval cancers in women initially screened with SFM and FFDM and for women subsequently screened with SFM after SFM, FFDM after SFM, and FFDM after FFDM. Results:The recall rate was 3.4% (47 091 of 1 391 188) for SFM and 2.9% (13 130 of 446 172) for FFDM (P , .001). The biopsy rate was 1.4% (19 776 of 1 391 188) for SFM and 1.1% (5108 of 446 172) for FFDM (P , .001). The rate of screeningdetected ductal carcinoma in situ was higher (P = .019) while the rate of invasive breast cancer was lower (P , .001) for FFDM compared with those for SFM. The rate of both invasive screening-detected and interval breast cancer remained stable during the transition from SFM to FFDM (when the previous examination was SFM) and after FFDM was firmly established (when the previous examination was FFDM, .25 months after FFDM adoption) (P , .05). The positive predictive value of recall examinations and of invasive procedures increased from 19.3% (4559 of 23 598) and 48.3% (4651 of 9623) to 22.7% (681 of 2995) and 57.5% (689 of 1198), respectively, after adoption of FFDM (P , .001). Conclusion:After the initial transitional phase from SFM to FFDM, population-based screening with FFDM is associated with less harm because of lower recall and biopsy rates and higher positive predictive values after biopsy than screening with SFM.q RSNA, 2014

show abstract

Section: Breast Imaging: Transition From Screen-film To Full-field DImentioning

confidence: 64%

Mammographic Performance in a Population-based Screening Program: Before, during, and after the Transition from Screen-Film to Full-Field Digital Mammography

Hofvind¹,

Skaane²,

Elmore³

et al. 2014

Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Among the studies included, we found one randomized controlled trial (RCT), 29 three paired studies (prospective studies in which all the patients included underwent both types of mammography) 14,30,31 and seven cohort studies. [32][33][34][35][36][37][38] The allocation concealment in the only RCT included was not clearly described in the published paper.…”

Section: Authormentioning

confidence: 99%

“…14 DMIST study Ranganathan et al 21 Did not report data for calculating cancer detection rates and recall rates Seo et al 22 Assessment using previously known mammary lesions Skaane et al 23 Study that assessed endpoints other than those listed in the objective of this review, using data from the Skaane et al 31 and Skaane et al 29 Oslo I 12 and Oslo II 13 studies Skaane et al 12 First published paper from the study data included in the Skaane et al 31 Oslo I 12 study…”

Section: Authormentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Skaane et al 24 Study that assessed endpoints other than the objective of this review, using data from the Skaane et al 31 and Skaane et al 29 Oslo I 12 and Oslo II 13 studies Tosteson et al 25 Study that assessed endpoints other than those listed in the objective of this review (cost effectiveness) Yamada et al 26 Study that assesses endpoints other than those listed in the objective of this review (technical parameters) Yamada et al Upon completion of the search strategy and recovery, 11 studies were ultimately included in the systematic review (Figure 1).…”

Section: Authormentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparative evaluation of digital mammography and film mammography: systematic review and meta-analysis

Iared¹,

Shigueoka

Torloni

et al. 2011

Sao Paulo Med. J.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: Mammography is the best method for breast-cancer screening and is capable of reducing mortality rates. Studies that have assessed the clinical impact of mammography have been carried out using film mammography. Digital mammography has been proposed as a substitute for film mammography given the benefits inherent to digital technology. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of digital and film mammography. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. METHOD: The Medline, Scopus, Embase and Lilacs databases were searched looking for paired studies, cohorts and randomized controlled trials published up to 2009 that compared the performance of digital and film mammography, with regard to cancer detection, recall rates and tumor characteristics. The reference lists of included studies were checked for any relevant citations. RESULTS: A total of 11 studies involving 190,322 digital and 638,348 film mammography images were included. The cancer detection rates were significantly higher for digital mammography than for film mammography (risk relative, RR = 1.17; 95% confidence interval, CI = 1.06-1.29; I² = 19%). The advantage of digital mammography seemed greatest among patients between 50 and 60 years of age. There were no significant differences between the two methods regarding patient recall rates or the characteristics of the tumors detected. CONCLUSION: The cancer detection rates using digital mammography are slightly higher than the rates using film mammography. There are no significant differences in recall rates between film and digital mammography. The characteristics of the tumors are similar in patients undergoing the two methods.

show abstract

“…For CAD, FFDMs may provide the advantages of having higher signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and detective quantum efficiency (DQE), wider dynamic range, and higher contrast sensitivity than SFMs. Commercial CAD systems have been adapted to be used with FFDMs (O'Shaughnessy et al, 2001;Skaane et al, 2005b).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Computer-aided detection system for clustered microcalcifications: comparison of performance on full-field digital mammograms and digitized screen-film mammograms

Hadjiiski²,

Sahiner

et al. 2007

Phys. Med. Biol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We have developed a computer-aided detection (CAD) system to detect clustered microcalcification automatically on full-field digital mammograms (FFDMs) and a CAD system for screen-film mammograms (SFMs). The two systems used the same computer vision algorithms but their false positive (FP) classifiers were trained separately with sample images of each modality. In this study, we compared the performance of the CAD systems for detection of clustered microcalcifications on pairs of FFDM and SFM obtained from the same patient. For case-based performance evaluation, the FFDM CAD system achieved detection sensitivities of 70%, 80%, and 90% at an average FP cluster rate of 0.07, 0.16, and 0.63 per image, compared with an average FP cluster rate of 0.15, 0.38, and 2.02 per image for the SFM CAD system. The difference was statistically significant with the alternative free-response receiver operating characteristic (AFROC) analysis. When evaluated on data sets negative for microcalcification clusters, the average FP cluster rates of the FFDM CAD system were 0.04, 0.11, and 0.33 per image at detection sensitivity level of 70%, 80%, and 90%, compared with an average FP cluster rate of 0.08, 0.14, and 0.50 per image for the SFM CAD system. When evaluated for malignant cases only, the difference of the performance of the two CAD systems was not statistically significant with AFROC analysis.

show abstract

Follow-up and final results of the oslo I study comparing screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading

Cited by 50 publications

References 20 publications

Mammographic Performance in a Population-based Screening Program: Before, during, and after the Transition from Screen-Film to Full-Field Digital Mammography

Mammographic Performance in a Population-based Screening Program: Before, during, and after the Transition from Screen-Film to Full-Field Digital Mammography

Comparative evaluation of digital mammography and film mammography: systematic review and meta-analysis

Computer-aided detection system for clustered microcalcifications: comparison of performance on full-field digital mammograms and digitized screen-film mammograms

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About