Effect of Different Types of Mammography Equipment on Screening Outcomes: A Report by the Alliance for Breast Cancer Screening in Korea
- Author:
Bo Hwa CHOI
1
;
Eun Hye LEE
;
Jae Kwan JUN
;
Keum Won KIM
;
Young Mi PARK
;
Hye Won KIM
;
You Me KIM
;
Dong Rock SHIN
;
Hyo Soon LIM
;
Jeong Seon PARK
;
Hye Jung KIM
;
Author Information
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords: Breast neoplasms; Digital mammography; Screening; Sensitivity and specificity
- MeSH: Area Under Curve; Breast Neoplasms; Breast; Carcinoma in Situ; Korea; Mammography; Mass Screening; Medical Overuse; Pathology; Radiography; Retrospective Studies; ROC Curve; Sensitivity and Specificity
- From:Korean Journal of Radiology 2019;20(12):1638-1645
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
- Abstract: 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.
