title: Comparison of the clinical performance of three digital mammography systems in a breast cancer screening programme.
abstract: This study compares the clinical performance of three digital mammography system types in a breast cancer screening programme. 28 digital mammography systems from three different vendors were included in the study. The retrospective analysis included 238 182 screening examinations of females aged between 50 and 64 years over a 3-year period. All images were double read and assigned a result according to a 5-point rating scale to indicate the probability of cancer. Females with a positive result were recalled for further assessment imaging and biopsy if necessary. Clinical performance in terms of cancer detection rate was analysed and the results presented. No statistically significant difference was found between the three different mammography systems in a population-based screening programme, in terms of the overall cancer detection rate or in the detection of invasive cancer and ductal carcinoma in situ. This was shown in both prevalent and subsequent screening examination categories. The results demonstrate comparable cancer detection performance for the three imaging system types operational in the screening programme.
authors.affiliation: BreastCheck, National Cancer Screening Service, Western Unit, Galway, Ireland. elizabeth.keavey@nbsp.ie
authors.forename: E
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Keavey
authors.forename: N
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Phelan
authors.forename: A M
authors.initials: AM
authors.lastname: O'Connell
authors.forename: F
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Flanagan
authors.forename: A
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: O'Doherty
authors.forename: A
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Larke
authors.forename: A M
authors.initials: AM
authors.lastname: Connors
mesh_terms: D001943:Breast Neoplasms / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging*; D018270:Carcinoma, Ductal, Breast / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging*; D055088:Early Detection of Cancer / Q000379:methods / Q000592:standards*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008327:Mammography / Q000592:standards*; D008875:Middle Aged; D011856:Radiographic Image Enhancement / Q000592:standards; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity
references.citation: Radiology. 2009 Feb;250(2):354-62
references.pmid: 19188311
references.citation: Med Phys. 2009 Mar;36(3):765-75
references.pmid: 19378737
references.citation: Radiology. 2009 Nov;253(2):353-8
references.pmid: 19703851
references.citation: Eur Radiol. 2009 Sep;19(9):2275-85
references.pmid: 19424702
references.citation: Med Phys. 2007 Jul;34(7):2730-43
references.pmid: 17821981
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 2005 Oct 27;353(17):1773-83
references.pmid: 16169887
references.citation: Radiology. 2009 May;251(2):347-58
references.pmid: 19401569
references.citation: Radiology. 2003 Dec;229(3):877-84
references.pmid: 14576447
references.citation: Ann Oncol. 2008 Apr;19(4):614-22
references.pmid: 18024988
references.citation: Radiology. 2004 Jul;232(1):197-204
references.pmid: 15155893
references.citation: Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1986 Mar 15;292(6522):746-50
references.pmid: 3082422
references.citation: Radiology. 2007 Sep;244(3):708-17
references.pmid: 17709826
references.citation: Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2011 Apr;145(1):52-60
references.pmid: 21097483
references.citation: Br J Radiol. 2010 Apr;83(988):290-5
references.pmid: 20019173
references.citation: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010 Feb;194(2):362-9
references.pmid: 20093597
references.citation: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009 Oct;193(4):1010-8
references.pmid: 19770323