ArticleThe Medical journal of Australia2025
The impact of the BreastScreen NSW transition from film to digital mammography, 2002-2016: a linked population health data analysis.
Article in The Medical journal of Australia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the impact of the transition from film to digital mammography in the Australian national breast cancer screening program. STUDY
designRetrospective linked population health data analysis (New South Wales Central Cancer Registry, BreastScreen NSW); interrupted time series analysis.
settingNew South Wales, 2002-2016.
participantsWomen aged 40 years or older with breast cancer diagnosed during 2002-2017 who had been screened by BreastScreen NSW and for whom complete follow-up information until the end of the recommended re-screening interval was available.
interventionTransition from film to digital mammography; 2009 defined as transition year (digital mammography becomes dominant screening modality).
main outcome measuresPopulation rates of screen-detected cancer, interval cancer, recalls, and false positive findings.
resultsThe study cohort comprised 967 573 women; of the 2 741 555 screens, 1 535 184 used film mammography (2002-2010) and 1 206 371 used digital mammography (2006-2016). The screen-detected cancer rate was 4.86 (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.75-4.97) cases per 1000 screens with film mammography and 6.11 (95% CI, 5.97-6.24) cases per 1000 screens with digital mammography (unadjusted difference, 1.24 [95% CI, 1.06-1.41] cases per 1000 screens). The interval cancer rate was 2.56 (95% CI, 2.48-2.64) cases per 1000 screens with film mammography and 2.84 (95% CI, 2.75-2.94) cases per 1000 screens with digital mammography (unadjusted difference, 0.27 [95% CI, 0.15-0.40] cases per 1000 screens). With the transition to digital mammography, the screen-detected cancer rate increased by 0.07 per 1000 screens, the sum of the decline in the invasive cancer rate (-0.21 cases per 1000 screens) and the rise in the ductal carcinoma in situ detection rate (0.28 cases per 1000 screens); during 2009-2015, it increased by 0.18 cases per 1000 screens per year. With the transition to digital mammography, the interval cancer rate increased by 0.75 cases per 1000 screens (invasive cancer: by 0.69 cases per 1000 screens); during 2009-2015, it declined by 0.13 cases per 1000 screens per year. The recall rate increased by 8.02 per 1000 screens and the false positive rate by 7.16 per 1000 screens following the transition; both rates subsequently declined to pre-transition levels.
conclusionsThe increased screen-detected cancer rate following the transition to digital mammography was not accompanied by a reduction in interval cancer detection rates.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.