Lewin John M, D'Orsi Carl J, Hendrick R Edward, Moss Lawrence J, Isaacs Pamela K, Karellas Andrew, Cutter Gary R
University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, 4200 E. 9th Ave., Mail Stop F724, Denver, CO 80262, USA.
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002 Sep;179(3):671-7. doi: 10.2214/ajr.179.3.1790671.
The purpose of this work is to compare full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for the detection of breast cancer in a screening population.
Full-field digital mammography was performed in addition to screen-film mammography in 6736 examinations of women 40 years old and older presenting for screening mammography at either of two institutions. Two views of each breast were acquired with each technique. The digital and screen-film mammograms were each interpreted independently. In addition to a clinical assessment, each finding was assigned a probability of malignancy for use in receiver operating characteristic analysis. In cases in which the digital and screen-film interpretations differed, a side-by-side analysis was performed to determine the reasons for the discrepancy. With few exceptions, findings detected on either technique were evaluated with additional imaging and, if warranted, biopsy.
Additional evaluation was recommended on at least one technique in 1467 cases. These additional evaluations led to 181 biopsies and the detection of 42 cancers. Nine cancers were detected only on digital mammography, 15 were detected only on screen-film mammography, and 18 were detected on both. The difference in cancer detection is not statistically significant (p > 0.1). Digital mammography resulted in fewer recalls than did screenfilm mammography (799 vs 1007, p < 0.001). The difference between the receiver operating characteristic curve area for digital (0.74) and screen-film (0.80) mammography was not significant (p > 0.1). Reasons for discrepant interpretations of cancer were approximately equally distributed among those relating to lesion conspicuity, lesion appearance, and interpretation.
No significant difference in cancer detection was observed between digital mammography and screen-film mammography. Digital mammography resulted in fewer recalls than did screen-film mammography.
本研究旨在比较全数字化乳腺摄影和屏-片乳腺摄影在筛查人群中检测乳腺癌的效果。
在两家机构中,对6736例40岁及以上接受乳腺筛查的女性进行了全数字化乳腺摄影及屏-片乳腺摄影检查。两种技术均对双侧乳腺进行两个投照体位的拍摄。数字化乳腺片和屏-片乳腺片分别由不同人员独立判读。除临床评估外,对每个发现的病变赋予恶性概率,用于绘制受试者工作特征曲线分析。当数字化乳腺片和屏-片乳腺片的判读结果不一致时,进行对比分析以确定差异原因。除少数例外情况,两种技术检测出的病变均进行了额外的影像学检查,必要时进行活检。
1467例病例中至少有一项技术建议进行进一步评估。这些进一步评估导致181例活检,并检测出42例癌症。仅在数字化乳腺摄影中检测出9例癌症,仅在屏-片乳腺摄影中检测出15例,两种方法均检测出18例。癌症检测率的差异无统计学意义(p>0.1)。数字化乳腺摄影导致的召回率低于屏-片乳腺摄影(799例对1007例,p<0.001)。数字化乳腺摄影(曲线下面积0.74)和屏-片乳腺摄影(曲线下面积0.80)的受试者工作特征曲线下面积差异无统计学意义(p>0.1)。癌症判读结果不一致的原因在病变清晰度、病变表现及判读方面大致均匀分布。
全数字化乳腺摄影和屏-片乳腺摄影在癌症检测方面无显著差异。数字化乳腺摄影导致的召回率低于屏-片乳腺摄影。