ArticleEuropean radiology2011
Differences in radiological patterns, tumour characteristics and diagnostic precision between digital mammography and screen-film mammography in four breast cancer screening programmes in Spain.
Article in European radiology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Simplifying Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System classification of mammograms with pure suspicious calcifications.Journal of medical screening · 2018Article
- Detection and interval cancer rates during the transition from screen-film to digital mammography in population-based screening.BMC cancer · 2018Article
- The importance of early detection of calcifications associated with breast cancer in screening.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2018Article
- Is the false-positive rate in mammography in North America too high?The British journal of radiology · 2016Review
- Digital vs screen-film mammography in population-based breast cancer screening: performance indicators and tumour characteristics of screen-detected and interval cancers.British journal of cancer · 2016Article
- Breast Cancer Characteristics Associated With Digital Versus Film-Screen Mammography for Screen-Detected and Interval Cancers.AJR. American journal of roentgenology · 2015Article
- Does digital mammography suppose an advance in early diagnosis? Trends in performance indicators 6 years after digitalization.European radiology · 2015Observational
- Opportunities for molecular epidemiological research on ductal carcinoma in-situ and breast carcinogenesis: interdisciplinary approaches.Breast disease · 2014Article
- Impact of risk factors on different interval cancer subtypes in a population-based breast cancer screening programme.PloS one · 2014Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare tumour characteristics between cancers detected with screen-film mammography (SFM) and digital mammography (DM) and to evaluate changes in positive predictive values (PPVs) for further assessments, for invasive procedures and for distinct radiological patterns in recalled women.
methods242,838 screening mammograms (171,191 SFM and 71,647 DM) from 103,613 women aged 45-69 years, performed in four population-based breast cancer screening programmes in Spain, were included. The tumour characteristics and PPVs of each group were compared. Radiological patterns (masses, calcifications, distortions and asymmetries) among recalled women were described and PPVs were evaluated.
resultsThe percentages of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) were higher in DM than in SFM both in the first [18.5% vs. 15.8%(p = 0.580)] and in successive screenings [23.2% vs. 15.7%(p = 0.115)]. PPVs for masses, asymmetries and calcifications were higher in DM, being statistically significant in masses (5.3% vs. 3.9%; proportion ratio: 1.37 95%CI: 1.08-1.72). Among cancers detected by calcifications, the percentage of DCIS was higher in DM (60.3% vs. 46.4%, p = 0.060).
conclusionsPPVs were higher when DM was used, both for further assessments and for invasive procedures, with similar cancer detection rates and no statistically significant differences in tumour characteristics. The greatest improvements in PPVs were found for masses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21560024What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.