Tumour characteristics of screen-detected and interval cancers in the Flemish Breast Cancer Screening Programme: A mammographic breast density study.

OBJECTIVE: The objective is to investigate tumour prognostic factors versus breast density in screen-detected cancers and interval cancers. The results may highlight the need for more personalised screening protocols based on breast density in organized screening programmes. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective study was performed of tumour characteristics of screen-detected cancers (n=468) and interval cancers (n=515) of 983 women who participated in the Flemish Breast Cancer Screening Programme in 2009-2010. Breast density was obtained from the screening programme data. Information on nodal invasion and histological grading was taken from the Belgian Cancer Registry. Tumour size and proliferation and receptor expression status were retrieved from pathology reports. The differences in tumour characteristics between screen-detected and interval cancers as well as the variation in these variables with breast density in both groups were studied by logistic regression. RESULTS: A comparison of tumour characteristics between screen-detected cancers and interval cancers systematically showed features of more aggressive tumours in interval cancers: larger tumour size, nodal invasion, grade 3 tumours, and hormone receptor negative phenotype (p<0.05). The analysis of tumour characteristics versus breast density in screen-detected cancers showed higher numbers of aggressive grade 3 tumours in low-density breasts and of the luminal A subtype with good prognosis in high-density breasts (p<0.05). This analysis for interval cancers highlights a high proportion of the difficult-to-treat triple-negative subtype in low-density breasts compared with high-density breasts. In conclusion, the study data support arguments against changes in breast cancer screening programmes with prolongation of screening intervals in low-density breasts.

Screen-detected versus interval cancers: Effect of imaging modality and breast density in the Flemish Breast Cancer Screening Programme.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate if direct radiography (DR) performs better than screen-film mammography (SF) and computed radiography (CR) in dense breasts in a decentralized organised Breast Cancer Screening Programme. To this end, screen-detected versus interval cancers were studied in different BI-RADS density classes for these imaging modalities. METHODS: The study cohort consisted of 351,532 women who participated in the Flemish Breast Cancer Screening Programme in 2009 and 2010. Information on screen-detected and interval cancers, breast density scores of radiologist second readers, and imaging modality was obtained by linkage of the databases of the Centre of Cancer Detection and the Belgian Cancer Registry. RESULTS: Overall, 67% of occurring breast cancers are screen detected and 33% are interval cancers, with DR performing better than SF and CR. The interval cancer rate increases gradually with breast density, regardless of modality. In the high-density class, the interval cancer rate exceeds the cancer detection rate for SF and CR, but not for DR. CONCLUSIONS: DR is superior to SF and CR with respect to cancer detection rates for high-density breasts. To reduce the high interval cancer rate in dense breasts, use of an additional imaging technique in screening can be taken into consideration. KEY POINTS: • Interval cancer rate increases gradually with breast density, regardless of modality. • Cancer detection rate in high-density breasts is superior in DR. • IC rate exceeds CDR for SF and CR in high-density breasts. • DR performs better in high-density breasts for third readings and false-positives.

Impact of the digitalisation of mammography on performance parameters and breast dose in the Flemish Breast Cancer Screening Programme.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the impact of digitalisation on performance parameters and breast dose of the Flemish Breast Cancer Screening Programme. Both computed (CR) and direct radiography (DR) are compared with screen-film mammography (SFM). METHODS: Data from 975,673 mammographic examinations were collected from units which underwent digitalisation from SFM to CR (41 units) or DR (72 units) in the period 2005-2011. Performance indicators were obtained by consulting the Screening Programme database. Phantom and patient dosimetry data were acquired from the physical technical quality assurance of the programme. RESULTS: Digitalisation induced no significant change in cancer detection rate (CDR), percentage of ductal carcinomas in situ and percentage of breast cancers smaller than 1 cm. A decrease in false-positive results and third readings was observed, which was a time-related observation. After digitalisation, positive predictive value (PPV) increased and recall rates decreased. Compared with SFM, an increase of 30% in mean glandular dose (MGD) was found for CR, while a similar change in the opposite direction was found for DR. CONCLUSIONS: No major differences in performance parameters after digitalisation were found. Transition of SFM to CR resulted in a higher MGD and associated lower detection-over-induction ratio (DIR), while the change to DR induced an improvement of DIR. KEY POINTS: • Performance parameters showed no major differences after digitalisation to CR or DR. • Transition from SFM to CR results in a higher mean glandular dose. • Transition from SFM to DR results in a lower mean glandular dose.

Technical and clinical breast cancer screening performance indicators for computed radiography versus direct digital radiography.

OBJECTIVES: To compare technical and clinical screening performance parameters between computed radiography (CR) and direct digital radiography (DR) systems. METHODS: The number of women screened with CR was 73,008 and with DR 116,945. Technical and patient dose survey data of 25 CR and 37 DR systems were available. Technical performance was expressed by threshold thickness values at the mean glandular dose (MGD) level of routine practice. Clinical indicators included recall rate (RR), cancer detection rate (CDR), percentage of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), percentage of cancers with T-scores smaller than 1 cm and positive predictive value (PPV). RESULTS: Contrast threshold values for the 0.1-mm gold disk were 1.44 µm (SD 0.13 µm) for CR and 1.20 µm (SD 0.13 µm for DR). MGD was 2.16 mGy (SD 0.36 mGy) and 1.35 mGy (SD 0.32 mGy) for CR and DR respectively. We obtained for CR, respectively DR, the following results: RR in the first round of 5.48 % versus 5.61 %; RR in subsequent rounds of 2.52 % versus 2.65 %; CDR of 0.52 % versus 0.53 %; DCIS of 0.08 % versus 0.11 %; a rate of cancers with T-scores smaller than 1 cm of 0.11 % versus 0.11 %; PPV of 18.45 % versus 18.64 %; none of them was significantly different. CONCLUSION: Our screening indicators are reassuring for the use of CR and DR, with CR operating at 60 % higher MGD. KEY POINTS: • Breast cancer screening can employ both computed (CR) and direct digital radiography (DR). • Screening performance parameters for CR and DR technology are not significantly different. • Screening parameters are in accordance with European Guidelines. • Radiation doses employed for CR are generally 60 % greater than for DR.