Vigeland Einar, Klaasen Herman, Klingen Tor Audun, Hofvind Solveig, Skaane Per
Department of Radiology, Vestfold Hospital, Halfdan Wilhelmsens Alle 17, 3116 Tønsberg, Norway.
Eur Radiol. 2008 Jan;18(1):183-91. doi: 10.1007/s00330-007-0730-y. Epub 2007 Aug 7.
The purpose of the study was to compare the performance of full-field digital mammography (FFDM) with soft-copy reading to screen film mammography (SFM) used during the first prevalent 2-year round of population-based screening. A total of 18,239 women aged 50-69 years were screened with FFDM as part of the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Programme (NBCSP). Process indicators were compared to data from 324,763 women screened with SFM using the common national database of the NBCSP. The cancer detection rates were 0.77% (140/18,239) for FFDM and 0.65% (2,105/324,763) for SFM (p = 0.058). For ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) alone, the results were: FFDM 0.21% (38/18,239) compared to SFM 0.11% (343/324,763) (p < 0.001). Recall rates due to positive mammography were for FFDM 4.09% (746/18,239), while for SFM 4.16% (13,520/324,764) (p = 0.645), due to technically insufficient imaging: FFDM 0.22% (40/18,239) versus SFM 0.61% (1,993/324,763) (p < 0.001). The positive predictive value (PPV) in the FFDM group was 16.6% (140/843), while 13.5% (2,105/15,537) for SFM (p = 0.014). No statistically significant differences were recorded concerning histological morphology, tumour size, or lymph node involvement. In conclusion FFDM had a significantly higher detection rate for DCIS than SFM. For invasive cancers no difference was seen. FFDM also had a significantly higher PPV and a significantly lower technical recall rate.
该研究的目的是比较全视野数字乳腺摄影(FFDM)软读片与基于人群的首轮两年筛查中使用的屏-片乳腺摄影(SFM)的性能。作为挪威乳腺癌筛查计划(NBCSP)的一部分,共有18239名年龄在50-69岁的女性接受了FFDM筛查。将过程指标与使用NBCSP的国家通用数据库中324763名接受SFM筛查的女性的数据进行比较。FFDM的癌症检出率为0.77%(140/18239),SFM为0.65%(2105/324763)(p = 0.058)。仅就导管原位癌(DCIS)而言,结果如下:FFDM为0.21%(38/18239),而SFM为0.11%(343/324763)(p < 0.001)。因乳腺摄影阳性导致的召回率,FFDM为4.09%(746/18239),而SFM为4.16%(13520/324764)(p = 0.645);因成像技术不足导致的召回率,FFDM为0.22%(40/18239),而SFM为0.61%(1993/324763)(p < 0.001)。FFDM组的阳性预测值(PPV)为16.6%(140/843),而SFM为13.5%(2105/15537)(p = 0.014)。在组织学形态、肿瘤大小或淋巴结受累方面未记录到统计学上的显著差异。总之,FFDM对DCIS的检出率明显高于SFM。对于浸润性癌,未观察到差异。FFDM的PPV也明显更高,技术召回率明显更低。