Cargando…

Does digital mammography suppose an advance in early diagnosis? Trends in performance indicators 6 years after digitalization

PURPOSE: To provide a complete evaluation of the long-term impact of full-field digital mammography (FFDM) on the improvement of early diagnosis in a population-based screening program. METHODS: We included 82,961 screen-film mammograms (SFM) and 79,031 FFDM from women aged 50–69 screened biennially...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sala, Maria, Domingo, Laia, Macià, Francesc, Comas, Mercè, Burón, Andrea, Castells, Xavier
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4328118/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25257856
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3431-3
_version_ 1782357188235231232
author Sala, Maria
Domingo, Laia
Macià, Francesc
Comas, Mercè
Burón, Andrea
Castells, Xavier
author_facet Sala, Maria
Domingo, Laia
Macià, Francesc
Comas, Mercè
Burón, Andrea
Castells, Xavier
author_sort Sala, Maria
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To provide a complete evaluation of the long-term impact of full-field digital mammography (FFDM) on the improvement of early diagnosis in a population-based screening program. METHODS: We included 82,961 screen-film mammograms (SFM) and 79,031 FFDM from women aged 50–69 screened biennially from 1995–2010 in Spain and followed-up to 2012. The first screening round of the program was excluded. Rates of cancer detection, interval cancer, tumoral characteristics and other quality indicators were compared between SFM and FFDM periods using the Chi-square test. Multivariate logistic regression models were fitted. RESULTS: Detection of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) significantly increased with FFDM (0.05 % vs 0.09 %; p = 0.010), along with the proportion of small invasive cancers (<20 mm) (69.37 % vs 78.90 %; p = 0.040). The false-positive rate decreased with FFDM (4.79 % vs 3.38 %; p < 0.001) without differences in the cancer detection rate (0.42 % vs 0.43 %; p = 0.685) or in the interval cancer rate (0.14 % vs 0.14 %; p = 0.816). Adjusted models showed a significant increase in the detection of DCIS in the FFDM periods. CONCLUSION: Digitalization has supposed an improvement in early diagnosis because DCIS and small invasive cancers increased without a change in detection rate. Moreover, false-positive reduction without an increase in the interval cancer rate was confirmed. KEY POINTS: • Cancer detection did not increase after 6 years of digital mammography • Ductal carcinoma in situ rates remained higher throughout the digital period • The proportion of small invasive cancers was higher with digital mammography • We observed an improvement in early diagnosis with digital mammography • False-positive rates remained lower throughout the digital period without interval cancer increase
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4328118
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-43281182015-02-20 Does digital mammography suppose an advance in early diagnosis? Trends in performance indicators 6 years after digitalization Sala, Maria Domingo, Laia Macià, Francesc Comas, Mercè Burón, Andrea Castells, Xavier Eur Radiol Breast PURPOSE: To provide a complete evaluation of the long-term impact of full-field digital mammography (FFDM) on the improvement of early diagnosis in a population-based screening program. METHODS: We included 82,961 screen-film mammograms (SFM) and 79,031 FFDM from women aged 50–69 screened biennially from 1995–2010 in Spain and followed-up to 2012. The first screening round of the program was excluded. Rates of cancer detection, interval cancer, tumoral characteristics and other quality indicators were compared between SFM and FFDM periods using the Chi-square test. Multivariate logistic regression models were fitted. RESULTS: Detection of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) significantly increased with FFDM (0.05 % vs 0.09 %; p = 0.010), along with the proportion of small invasive cancers (<20 mm) (69.37 % vs 78.90 %; p = 0.040). The false-positive rate decreased with FFDM (4.79 % vs 3.38 %; p < 0.001) without differences in the cancer detection rate (0.42 % vs 0.43 %; p = 0.685) or in the interval cancer rate (0.14 % vs 0.14 %; p = 0.816). Adjusted models showed a significant increase in the detection of DCIS in the FFDM periods. CONCLUSION: Digitalization has supposed an improvement in early diagnosis because DCIS and small invasive cancers increased without a change in detection rate. Moreover, false-positive reduction without an increase in the interval cancer rate was confirmed. KEY POINTS: • Cancer detection did not increase after 6 years of digital mammography • Ductal carcinoma in situ rates remained higher throughout the digital period • The proportion of small invasive cancers was higher with digital mammography • We observed an improvement in early diagnosis with digital mammography • False-positive rates remained lower throughout the digital period without interval cancer increase Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2014-09-26 2015 /pmc/articles/PMC4328118/ /pubmed/25257856 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3431-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2014 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.
spellingShingle Breast
Sala, Maria
Domingo, Laia
Macià, Francesc
Comas, Mercè
Burón, Andrea
Castells, Xavier
Does digital mammography suppose an advance in early diagnosis? Trends in performance indicators 6 years after digitalization
title Does digital mammography suppose an advance in early diagnosis? Trends in performance indicators 6 years after digitalization
title_full Does digital mammography suppose an advance in early diagnosis? Trends in performance indicators 6 years after digitalization
title_fullStr Does digital mammography suppose an advance in early diagnosis? Trends in performance indicators 6 years after digitalization
title_full_unstemmed Does digital mammography suppose an advance in early diagnosis? Trends in performance indicators 6 years after digitalization
title_short Does digital mammography suppose an advance in early diagnosis? Trends in performance indicators 6 years after digitalization
title_sort does digital mammography suppose an advance in early diagnosis? trends in performance indicators 6 years after digitalization
topic Breast
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4328118/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25257856
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3431-3
work_keys_str_mv AT salamaria doesdigitalmammographysupposeanadvanceinearlydiagnosistrendsinperformanceindicators6yearsafterdigitalization
AT domingolaia doesdigitalmammographysupposeanadvanceinearlydiagnosistrendsinperformanceindicators6yearsafterdigitalization
AT maciafrancesc doesdigitalmammographysupposeanadvanceinearlydiagnosistrendsinperformanceindicators6yearsafterdigitalization
AT comasmerce doesdigitalmammographysupposeanadvanceinearlydiagnosistrendsinperformanceindicators6yearsafterdigitalization
AT buronandrea doesdigitalmammographysupposeanadvanceinearlydiagnosistrendsinperformanceindicators6yearsafterdigitalization
AT castellsxavier doesdigitalmammographysupposeanadvanceinearlydiagnosistrendsinperformanceindicators6yearsafterdigitalization