Henderson Louise M, Miglioretti Diana L, Kerlikowske Karla, Wernli Karen J, Sprague Brian L, Lehman Constance D
1 Department of Radiology, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 130 Mason Farm Rd, 3124 Bioinformatics Building, CB 7515, Chapel Hill, NC 27599.
2 Division of Biostatistics, Department of Public Health Sciences, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA.
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015 Sep;205(3):676-84. doi: 10.2214/AJR.14.13904.
The purpose of this study was to determine whether pathologic findings of screen-detected and interval cancers differ for digital versus film mammography.
Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium data from 2003-2011 on 3,021,515 screening mammograms (40.3% digital, 59.7% film) of women 40-89 years old were reviewed. Cancers were considered screen detected if diagnosed within 12 months of an examination with positive findings and interval if diagnosed within 12 months of an examination with negative findings. Tumor characteristics for screen-detected and interval cancers were compared for digital versus film mammography by use of logistic regression models to estimate the odds ratio and 95% CI with adjustment for age, race and ethnicity, hormone therapy use, screening interval, examination year, and registry. Generalized estimating equations were used to account for correlation within facilities.
Among 15,729 breast cancers, 85.3% were screen detected and 14.7% were interval. Digital and film mammography had similar rates of screen-detected (4.47 vs 4.42 per 1000 examinations) and interval (0.73 vs 0.79 per 1000 examinations) cancers for digital versus film. In adjusted analyses, interval cancers diagnosed after digital examinations with negative findings were less likely to be American Joint Committee on Cancer stage IIB or higher (odds ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.52-0.93), have positive nodal status (odds ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.64-0.95), or be estrogen receptor negative (odds ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.56-0.91) than were interval cancers diagnosed after a film examination with negative findings.
Screen-detected cancers diagnosed after digital and film mammography had similar rates of unfavorable tumor characteristics. Interval-detected cancers diagnosed after a digital examination were less likely to have unfavorable tumor features than those diagnosed after film mammography, but the absolute differences were small.
本研究旨在确定数字化乳腺钼靶与胶片乳腺钼靶筛查出的癌症及间期癌的病理结果是否存在差异。
回顾了乳腺癌监测联盟2003年至2011年期间40至89岁女性的3,021,515例乳腺钼靶筛查数据(40.3%为数字化,59.7%为胶片)。如果癌症在检查结果为阳性后的12个月内被诊断,则视为筛查发现;如果在检查结果为阴性后的12个月内被诊断,则视为间期癌。通过逻辑回归模型比较数字化乳腺钼靶与胶片乳腺钼靶筛查出的癌症及间期癌的肿瘤特征,以估计比值比和95%可信区间,并对年龄、种族和民族、激素治疗使用情况、筛查间隔、检查年份和登记处进行调整。使用广义估计方程来考虑机构内部的相关性。
在15,729例乳腺癌中,85.3%为筛查发现,14.7%为间期癌。数字化乳腺钼靶与胶片乳腺钼靶筛查出的癌症(每1000次检查中分别为4.47例和4.42例)及间期癌(每1000次检查中分别为0.73例和0.79例)的发生率相似。在调整分析中,与胶片检查结果为阴性后诊断出的间期癌相比,数字化检查结果为阴性后诊断出的间期癌为美国癌症联合委员会IIB期或更高分期(比值比,0.69;95%可信区间,0.52 - 0.93)、有阳性淋巴结状态(比值比,0.78;95%可信区间,0.64 - 0.95)或雌激素受体阴性(比值比,0.71;95%可信区间,0.56 - 0.91)的可能性更小。
数字化乳腺钼靶与胶片乳腺钼靶筛查出的癌症具有不良肿瘤特征的发生率相似。数字化检查后诊断出的间期癌比胶片乳腺钼靶检查后诊断出的间期癌具有不良肿瘤特征的可能性更小,但绝对差异较小。