title: The positive predictive value for diagnosis of breast cancer full-field digital mammography versus film-screen mammography in the diagnostic mammographic population.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  Diagnostic mammography is performed on women with clinical symptoms that suggest breast cancer or women for whom further mammographic evaluation has been requested because of an abnormal screening mammography. We assessed whether the use of full-field digital mammography would improve the positive predictive value (PPV) for the diagnosis of breast cancer in a diagnostic population compared with film-screen mammography.
  
  
  METHODS
  From January 2002 to December 2003, 11,621 patients underwent diagnostic mammography at the University of North Carolina Hospital, Chapel Hill. Among these 11,621 patients, 1400 lesions in 1121 patients underwent biopsy. We included the biopsy-performed lesions, so PPV3 was used for comparison of PPVs between film-screen mammography and full-field digital mammography. Six breast radiologists interpreted the images using the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System of the American College of Radiology. PPV3s were compared between film-screen and full-field digital mammography in the entire study cohort and in specified subgroups according to different radiologists, breast density, and lesion type on mammography. The chi(2) and Fisher's exact tests were used for comparison of PPV3s between two modalities of mammography with the Bonferroni procedure for subgroup analysis.
  
  
  RESULTS
  In the entire study cohort, PPV3s of full-field digital mammography and film-screen mammography were similar (difference in PPV3,-0.007; 95% confidence interval, -0.081 to 0.068; P = .8602). In predefined subgroups, there was no difference in PPV3 by the radiologist, breast density, or lesion type between two modalities of mammography (P > .005).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  There is no improvement in PPV for the diagnosis of breast cancer with full-field digital mammography compared with film-screen mammography in a large diagnostic population.
authors.affiliation: Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Korea University School of Medicine, Ansan, Korea.
authors.forename: Bo Kyoung
authors.initials: BK
authors.lastname: Seo
authors.forename: Etta D
authors.initials: ED
authors.lastname: Pisano
authors.forename: Cherie M
authors.initials: CM
authors.lastname: Kuzmiak
authors.forename: Marcia
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Koomen
authors.forename: Dag
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Pavic
authors.forename: Robert
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: McLelland
authors.forename: Yeonhee
authors.initials: Y
authors.lastname: Lee
authors.forename: Elodia B
authors.initials: EB
authors.lastname: Cole
authors.forename: Dianne
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Mattingly
authors.forename: Juneyoung
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Lee
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D001943:Breast Neoplasms / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging* / Q000453:epidemiology*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008327:Mammography / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D008875:Middle Aged; D009657:North Carolina; D015995:Prevalence; D011379:Prognosis; D011856:Radiographic Image Enhancement; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D018570:Risk Assessment / Q000379:methods*; D012307:Risk Factors; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D014962:X-Ray Film / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*