Cargando…
Impact of Full-Field Digital Mammography Versus Film-Screen Mammography in Population Screening: A Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND: Breast screening programs replaced film mammography with digital mammography, and the effects of this practice shift in population screening on health outcomes can be measured through examination of cancer detection and interval cancer rates. METHODS: A systematic review and random effec...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Oxford University Press
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7781455/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32572492 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djaa080 |
_version_ | 1783631681444380672 |
---|---|
author | Farber, Rachel Houssami, Nehmat Wortley, Sally Jacklyn, Gemma Marinovich, Michael L McGeechan, Kevin Barratt, Alexandra Bell, Katy |
author_facet | Farber, Rachel Houssami, Nehmat Wortley, Sally Jacklyn, Gemma Marinovich, Michael L McGeechan, Kevin Barratt, Alexandra Bell, Katy |
author_sort | Farber, Rachel |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Breast screening programs replaced film mammography with digital mammography, and the effects of this practice shift in population screening on health outcomes can be measured through examination of cancer detection and interval cancer rates. METHODS: A systematic review and random effects meta-analysis were undertaken. Seven databases were searched for publications that compared film with digital mammography within the same population of asymptomatic women and reported cancer detection and/or interval cancer rates. RESULTS: The analysis included 24 studies with 16 583 743 screening examinations (10 968 843 film and 5 614 900 digital). The pooled difference in the cancer detection rate showed an increase of 0.51 per 1000 screens (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.19 to 0.83), greater relative increase for ductal carcinoma in situ (25.2%, 95% CI = 17.4% to 33.5%) than invasive (4%, 95% CI = −3% to 13%), and a recall rate increase of 6.95 (95% CI = 3.47 to 10.42) per 1000 screens after the transition from film to digital mammography. Seven studies (80.8% of screens) reported interval cancers: the pooled difference showed no change in the interval cancer rate with −0.02 per 1000 screens (95% CI = −0.06 to 0.03). Restricting analysis to studies at low risk of bias resulted in findings consistent with the overall pooled results for all outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The increase in cancer detection following the practice shift to digital mammography did not translate into a reduction in the interval cancer rate. Recall rates were increased. These results suggest the transition from film to digital mammography did not result in health benefits for screened women. This analysis reinforces the need to carefully evaluate effects of future changes in technology, such as tomosynthesis, to ensure new technology leads to improved health outcomes and beyond technical gains. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7781455 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Oxford University Press |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-77814552021-01-07 Impact of Full-Field Digital Mammography Versus Film-Screen Mammography in Population Screening: A Meta-Analysis Farber, Rachel Houssami, Nehmat Wortley, Sally Jacklyn, Gemma Marinovich, Michael L McGeechan, Kevin Barratt, Alexandra Bell, Katy J Natl Cancer Inst Review BACKGROUND: Breast screening programs replaced film mammography with digital mammography, and the effects of this practice shift in population screening on health outcomes can be measured through examination of cancer detection and interval cancer rates. METHODS: A systematic review and random effects meta-analysis were undertaken. Seven databases were searched for publications that compared film with digital mammography within the same population of asymptomatic women and reported cancer detection and/or interval cancer rates. RESULTS: The analysis included 24 studies with 16 583 743 screening examinations (10 968 843 film and 5 614 900 digital). The pooled difference in the cancer detection rate showed an increase of 0.51 per 1000 screens (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.19 to 0.83), greater relative increase for ductal carcinoma in situ (25.2%, 95% CI = 17.4% to 33.5%) than invasive (4%, 95% CI = −3% to 13%), and a recall rate increase of 6.95 (95% CI = 3.47 to 10.42) per 1000 screens after the transition from film to digital mammography. Seven studies (80.8% of screens) reported interval cancers: the pooled difference showed no change in the interval cancer rate with −0.02 per 1000 screens (95% CI = −0.06 to 0.03). Restricting analysis to studies at low risk of bias resulted in findings consistent with the overall pooled results for all outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The increase in cancer detection following the practice shift to digital mammography did not translate into a reduction in the interval cancer rate. Recall rates were increased. These results suggest the transition from film to digital mammography did not result in health benefits for screened women. This analysis reinforces the need to carefully evaluate effects of future changes in technology, such as tomosynthesis, to ensure new technology leads to improved health outcomes and beyond technical gains. Oxford University Press 2020-06-23 /pmc/articles/PMC7781455/ /pubmed/32572492 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djaa080 Text en © The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com |
spellingShingle | Review Farber, Rachel Houssami, Nehmat Wortley, Sally Jacklyn, Gemma Marinovich, Michael L McGeechan, Kevin Barratt, Alexandra Bell, Katy Impact of Full-Field Digital Mammography Versus Film-Screen Mammography in Population Screening: A Meta-Analysis |
title | Impact of Full-Field Digital Mammography Versus Film-Screen Mammography in Population Screening: A Meta-Analysis |
title_full | Impact of Full-Field Digital Mammography Versus Film-Screen Mammography in Population Screening: A Meta-Analysis |
title_fullStr | Impact of Full-Field Digital Mammography Versus Film-Screen Mammography in Population Screening: A Meta-Analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Impact of Full-Field Digital Mammography Versus Film-Screen Mammography in Population Screening: A Meta-Analysis |
title_short | Impact of Full-Field Digital Mammography Versus Film-Screen Mammography in Population Screening: A Meta-Analysis |
title_sort | impact of full-field digital mammography versus film-screen mammography in population screening: a meta-analysis |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7781455/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32572492 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djaa080 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT farberrachel impactoffullfielddigitalmammographyversusfilmscreenmammographyinpopulationscreeningametaanalysis AT houssaminehmat impactoffullfielddigitalmammographyversusfilmscreenmammographyinpopulationscreeningametaanalysis AT wortleysally impactoffullfielddigitalmammographyversusfilmscreenmammographyinpopulationscreeningametaanalysis AT jacklyngemma impactoffullfielddigitalmammographyversusfilmscreenmammographyinpopulationscreeningametaanalysis AT marinovichmichaell impactoffullfielddigitalmammographyversusfilmscreenmammographyinpopulationscreeningametaanalysis AT mcgeechankevin impactoffullfielddigitalmammographyversusfilmscreenmammographyinpopulationscreeningametaanalysis AT barrattalexandra impactoffullfielddigitalmammographyversusfilmscreenmammographyinpopulationscreeningametaanalysis AT bellkaty impactoffullfielddigitalmammographyversusfilmscreenmammographyinpopulationscreeningametaanalysis |