Mammographic findings of women recalled for diagnostic work-up in digital versus screen-film mammography in a population-based screening program

Abstract

In DM women were recalled for diagnostic work-up more often for calcifications, parenchymal distortions, and asymmetries than in SFM. In the case of tumor-like masses, more women were recalled in SFM. DM detected more cancers than SFM, and the PPVs for cancer were higher in DM than in SFM in all subgroups of radiological findings.

Differences in radiological patterns, tumour characteristics and diagnostic precision between digital mammography and screen-film mammography in four breast cancer screening programmes in Spain

“…Only a few studies have compared the PPVs of DM and SFM according to radiological patterns [11,18]. Our relative rate for masses was very similar to that in a Finnish study, which also found that the PPV specific for calcifications was higher with DM, although this difference was not statistically significant (53.4% vs. 41.1%).…”

“…Although consensus is lacking [13,17], several publications report higher PPV with DM than with SFM [9,11,18] differences between these studies and our own, mainly in the design of the study groups, thus hampering comparisons. The PPV values reported in above mentioned studies were probably higher due to the lower recall rate in their settings.…”

“…We found no statistically significant differences in cancer detection rates or tumour characteristics between the two groups. In the first and successive screenings, the percentages of DCIS were higher in the DM than in the SFM group: 18 The total number of screening tests in SFM and DM was not the sum of tests with normal findings, recalled for further assessments and early recalled since some recalled and early-recalled women did not attend the invitation for further assessments (N=537 in SFM and N=60 in DM). Fig.…”

Digital Compared with Screen-Film Mammography: Performance Measures in Concurrent Cohorts within an Organized Breast Screening Program

“…Only two studies (17,24) have evaluated the performance of CR technology; however, neither compared concurrent cohorts. These studies found no difference in cancer detection (17) or significantly higher cancer detection rates (24) and positive predictive values (17,24) for CR compared with SFM. The purpose of our study was to compare the performance of DR and CR with that of SFM in large concurrent cohorts.…”

“…Of the studies that 3examined the effect of DM in breast screening programs (17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27), five compared DM with SFM in concurrent cohorts (20,21,23,25,27), using mainly DR technology. Most found similar cancer detection rates (20,21,23) and positive predictive values (20,21,25) but also reported significantly higher recall rates for DM than for SFM (20,25).…”