Korean Journal of Radiology

  • 제20권12호
  • /
  • Pages.1638-1645
  • /
  • 2019
  • /
  • 1229-6929(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2005-8330(eISSN)
대한영상의학회 (The Korean Society of Radiology)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Effect of Different Types of Mammography Equipment on Screening Outcomes: A Report by the Alliance for Breast Cancer Screening in Korea

  • Choi, Bo Hwa (Department of Radiology, Gyeongsang National University School of Medicine and Gyeongsang National University Changwon Hospital) ;
  • Lee, Eun Hye (Department of Radiology, Soonchunhyang University Bucheon Hospital, Soonchunhyang University College of Medicine) ;
  • Jun, Jae Kwan (National Cancer Control Institute, National Cancer Center) ;
  • Kim, Keum Won (Department of Radiology, Konyang University Hospital, Konyang University College of Medicine) ;
  • Park, Young Mi (Department of Radiology, Busan Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine) ;
  • Kim, Hye-Won (Department of Radiology, Wonkwang University Hospital, Wonkwang University School of Medicine) ;
  • Kim, You Me (Department of Radiology, Dankook University Hospital, Dankook University College of Medicine) ;
  • Shin, Dong Rock (Department of Radiology, Gangneung Asan Hospital, University of Ulsan College of Medicine) ;
  • Lim, Hyo Soon (Department of Radiology, Chonnam National University Hwasun Hospital, Chonnam National University College of Medicine) ;
  • Park, Jeong Seon (Department of Radiology, Hanyang University Hospital, Hanyang University College of Medicine) ;
  • Kim, Hye Jung (Department of Radiology, Kyungpook National University Medical Center, Kyungpook National University College of Medicine)
  • 투고 : 2019.01.04
  • 심사 : 2019.07.29
  • 발행 : 2019.12.01
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Objective: To investigate the effects of different types of mammography equipment on screening outcomes by comparing the performance of film-screen mammography (FSM), computed radiography mammography (CRM), and digital mammography (DM). Materials and Methods: We retrospectively enrolled 128756 sets of mammograms from 10 hospitals participating in the Alliance for Breast Cancer Screening in Korea between 2005 and 2010. We compared the diagnostic accuracy of the types of mammography equipment by analyzing the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) with a 95% confidence interval (CI); performance indicators, including recall rate, cancer detection rate (CDR), positive predictive value1 (PPV1), sensitivity, specificity, and interval cancer rate (ICR); and the types of breast cancer pathology. Results: The AUCs were 0.898 (95% CI, 0.878-0.919) in DM, 0.860 (0.815-0.905) in FSM, and 0.866 (0.828-0.903) in CRM (p = 0.150). DM showed better performance than FSM and CRM in terms of the recall rate (14.8 vs. 24.8 and 19.8%), CDR (3.4 vs. 2.2 and 2.1 per 1000 examinations), PPV1 (2.3 vs. 0.9 and 1.1%), and specificity (85.5 vs. 75.3 and 80.3%) (p < 0.001) but not in terms of sensitivity (86.3 vs. 87.4 and 86.3%) and ICR (0.6 vs. 0.4 and 0.4). The proportions of carcinoma in situ (CIS) were 27.5%, 13.6%, and 11.8% for DM, CRM, and FSM, respectively (p = 0.003). Conclusion: In comparison to FSM and CRM, DM showed better performance in terms of the recall rate, CDR, PPV1, and specificity, although the AUCs were similar, and more CISs were detected using DM. The application of DM may help to improve the quality of mammography screenings. However, the overdiagnosis issue of CIS using DM should be evaluated.

키워드

과제정보

This study was supported by a grant from the National R&D Program for Cancer Control, Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea (1520200).

참고문헌

  1. Jung KW, Won YJ, Oh CM, Kong HJ, Lee DH, Lee KH; Community of Population-Based Regional Cancer Registries. Cancer statistics in Korea: incidence, mortality, survival, and prevalence in 2014. Cancer Res Treat 2017;49:292-305 https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2017.118
  2. Suh M, Choi KS, Park B, Lee YY, Jun JK, Lee DH, et al. Trends in cancer screening rates among Korean men and women: results of the Korean national cancer screening survey, 2004-2013. Cancer Res Treat 2016;48:1-10 https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2014.204
  3. Lee EH, Kim KW, Kim YJ, Shin DR, Park YM, Lim HS, et al. Performance of screening mammography: a report of the Alliance for Breast Cancer Screening in Korea. Korean J Radiol 2016;17:489-496 https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2016.17.4.489
  4. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, Yaffe M, Baum JK, Acharyya S, et al.; Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) Investigators Group. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2005;353:1773-1783 https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa052911
  5. Pisano ED, Hendrick RE, Yaffe MJ, Baum JK, Acharyya S, Cormack JB, et al.; DMIST Investigators Group. Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST. Radiology 2008;246:376-383 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2461070200
  6. Kerlikowske K, Hubbard RA, Miglioretti DL, Geller BM, Yankaskas BC, Lehman CD, et al.; Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Comparative effectiveness of digital versus filmscreen mammography in community practice in the United States: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med 2011;155:493-502 https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00005
  7. Timmers JM, den Heeten GJ, Adang EM, Otten JD, Verbeek AL, Broeders MJ. Dutch digital breast cancer screening: implications for breast cancer care. Eur J Public Health 2012;22:925-929 https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckr170
  8. Nederend J, Duijm LE, Louwman MW, Groenewoud JH, Donkers-van Rossum AB, Voogd AC. Impact of transition from analog screening mammography to digital screening mammography on screening outcome in the Netherlands: a population-based study. Ann Oncol 2012;23:3098-3103 https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mds146
  9. Vigeland E, Klaasen H, Klingen TA, Hofvind S, Skaane P. Full-field digital mammography compared to screen film mammography in the prevalent round of a population-based screening programme: the Vestfold county study. Eur Radiol 2008;18:183-191 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-007-0730-y
  10. van Luijt PA, Fracheboud J, Heijnsdijk EA, den Heeten GJ, de Koning HJ; National Evaluation Team for Breast Cancer Screening in Netherlands Study Group (NETB). Nation-wide data on screening performance during the transition to digital mammography: observations in 6 million screens. Eur J Cancer 2013;49:3517-3525 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2013.06.020
  11. Bae JM, Shin SY, Kim EH, Kim YN, Nam CM. Distribution of dense breasts using screening mammography in Korean women: a retrospective observational study. Epidemiol Health 2014;36:e2014027 https://doi.org/10.4178/epih/e2014027
  12. Stomper PC, D'Souza DJ, DiNitto PA, Arredondo MA. Analysis of parenchymal density on mammograms in 1353 women 25-79 years old. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996;167:1261-1265 https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.167.5.8911192
  13. Mandelson MT, Oestreicher N, Porter PL, White D, Finder CA, Taplin SH, et al. Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:1081-1087 https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/92.13.1081
  14. Sickles EA, D'Orsi CJ. ACR BI-RADS follow-up and outcome monitoring. In: D'Orsi CJ, Sickles EA, Mendelson EB, Morris EA, eds. ACR BI-RADS® atlas, 5th ed. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 2013:15-20
  15. DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics 1988;44:837-845 https://doi.org/10.2307/2531595
  16. Skaane P, Hofvind S, Skjennald A. Randomized trial of screen-film versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading in population-based screening program: follow-up and final results of Oslo II study. Radiology 2007;244:708-717 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2443061478
  17. Kim YJ, Lee EH, Jun JK, Shin DR, Park YM, Kim HW, et al.; Alliance for Breast Cancer Screening in Korea (ABCS-K). Analysis of participant factors that affect the diagnostic performance of screening mammography: a report of the Alliance for Breast Cancer Screening in Korea. Korean J Radiol 2017;18:624-631 https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2017.18.4.624
  18. Dabbous F, Dolecek TA, Friedewald SM, Tossas-Milligan KY, Macarol T, Summerfelt WT, et al. Performance characteristics of digital vs film screen mammography in community practice. Breast J 2018;24:369-372 https://doi.org/10.1111/tbj.12942
  19. Karssemeijer N, Bluekens AM, Beijerinck D, Deurenberg JJ, Beekman M, Visser R, et al. Breast cancer screening results 5 years after introduction of digital mammography in a population-based screening program. Radiology 2009;253:353-358 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2532090225
  20. Del Turco MR, Mantellini P, Ciatto S, Bonardi R, Martinelli F, Lazzari B, et al. Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparative accuracy in concurrent screening cohorts. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;189:860-866 https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.07.2303
  21. Heddson B, Ronnow K, Olsson M, Miller D. Digital versus screen-film mammography: a retrospective comparison in a population-based screening program. Eur J Radiol 2007;64:419-425 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2007.02.030
  22. Dershaw DD, Abramson A, Kinne DW. Ductal carcinoma in situ: mammographic findings and clinical implications. Radiology 1989;170:411-415 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.170.2.2536185
  23. Duffy SW, Dibden A, Michalopoulos D, Offman J, Parmar D, Jenkins J, et al. Screen detection of ductal carcinoma in situ and subsequent incidence of invasive interval breast cancers: a retrospective population-based study. Lancet Oncol 2016;17:109-114 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00446-5
  24. Duffy SW, Tabar L, Vitak B, Day NE, Smith RA, Chen HH, et al. The relative contributions of screen-detected in situ and invasive breast carcinomas in reducing mortality from the disease. Eur J Cancer 2003;39:1755-1760 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-8049(03)00259-4
  25. Kalager M, Zelen M, Langmark F, Adami HO. Effect of screening mammography on breast-cancer mortality in Norway. N Engl J Med 2010;363:1203-1210 https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1000727
  26. Welch HG, Prorok PC, O'Malley AJ, Kramer BS. Breast-cancer tumor size, overdiagnosis, and mammography screening effectiveness. N Engl J Med 2016;375:1438-1447 https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1600249

피인용 문헌

  1. Advanced and futuristic approaches for breast cancer diagnosis vol.6, pp.1, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1186/s43094-020-00113-2
  2. Digital Mammography as a Screening Tool in Korea vol.82, pp.1, 2021, https://doi.org/10.3348/jksr.2021.0004