Comparison of digital and screen-film mammography for breast-cancer screening: A systematic review and meta analysis

Soo Yeon Song, Boyoung Park, Seri Hong, Min Jung Kim, Eun Hye Lee, Jae Kwan Jun

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: Digital mammography (DM) has replaced screen-film mammography (SFM). However, findings of comparisons between the performance indicators of DM and SFM for breast-cancer screening have been inconsistent. Moreover, the summarized results from studies comparing the performance of screening mammography according to device type vary over time. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the performance of DM and SFM using recently published data. Methods: The MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for paired studies, cohorts, and randomized controlled trials published through 2018 that compared the performance of DM and SFM. All studies comparing the diagnostic accuracy of DM and SFM in asymptomatic, average-risk women aged 40 years and older were included. Two reviewers independently assessed the study quality and extracted the data. Results: Thirteen studies were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity (DM, 0.76 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.70–0.81]; SFM, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.70–0.81]), specificity (DM, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.94–0.97]; SFM, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.94–0.98]), and area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (DM, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.92–0.96]; SFM, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.89–0.94]) were similar for both DM and SFM. The pooled screening performance indicators reinforced superior accuracy of full-field DM, which is a more advanced type of mammography, than SFM. The advantage of DM appeared greater among women aged 50 years or older. There was high heterogeneity among studies in the pooled sensitivity, specificity, and overall diagnostic accuracy estimates. Stratifying by study design (prospective or retrospective) and removing studies with a 2-year or greater follow-up period resulted in homogeneous overall diagnostic accuracy estimates. Conclusion: The breast-cancer screening performance of DM is similar to that of SFM. The diagnostic performance of DM depends on the study design, and, in terms of performance, full-field DM is superior to SFM, unlike computed radiography systems.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)311-325
Number of pages15
JournalJournal of Breast Cancer
Volume22
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2019 Jun

Fingerprint

Mammography
Early Detection of Cancer
Meta-Analysis
Breast Neoplasms
Confidence Intervals

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Oncology
  • Cancer Research

Cite this

Yeon Song, Soo ; Park, Boyoung ; Hong, Seri ; Jung Kim, Min ; Hye Lee, Eun ; Kwan Jun, Jae. / Comparison of digital and screen-film mammography for breast-cancer screening : A systematic review and meta analysis. In: Journal of Breast Cancer. 2019 ; Vol. 22, No. 2. pp. 311-325.
@article{98a7bafb61ce48cda03f1fda2c7449dd,
title = "Comparison of digital and screen-film mammography for breast-cancer screening: A systematic review and meta analysis",
abstract = "Purpose: Digital mammography (DM) has replaced screen-film mammography (SFM). However, findings of comparisons between the performance indicators of DM and SFM for breast-cancer screening have been inconsistent. Moreover, the summarized results from studies comparing the performance of screening mammography according to device type vary over time. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the performance of DM and SFM using recently published data. Methods: The MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for paired studies, cohorts, and randomized controlled trials published through 2018 that compared the performance of DM and SFM. All studies comparing the diagnostic accuracy of DM and SFM in asymptomatic, average-risk women aged 40 years and older were included. Two reviewers independently assessed the study quality and extracted the data. Results: Thirteen studies were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity (DM, 0.76 [95{\%} confidence interval {CI}, 0.70–0.81]; SFM, 0.76 [95{\%} CI, 0.70–0.81]), specificity (DM, 0.96 [95{\%} CI, 0.94–0.97]; SFM, 0.97 [95{\%} CI, 0.94–0.98]), and area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (DM, 0.94 [95{\%} CI, 0.92–0.96]; SFM, 0.92 [95{\%} CI, 0.89–0.94]) were similar for both DM and SFM. The pooled screening performance indicators reinforced superior accuracy of full-field DM, which is a more advanced type of mammography, than SFM. The advantage of DM appeared greater among women aged 50 years or older. There was high heterogeneity among studies in the pooled sensitivity, specificity, and overall diagnostic accuracy estimates. Stratifying by study design (prospective or retrospective) and removing studies with a 2-year or greater follow-up period resulted in homogeneous overall diagnostic accuracy estimates. Conclusion: The breast-cancer screening performance of DM is similar to that of SFM. The diagnostic performance of DM depends on the study design, and, in terms of performance, full-field DM is superior to SFM, unlike computed radiography systems.",
author = "{Yeon Song}, Soo and Boyoung Park and Seri Hong and {Jung Kim}, Min and {Hye Lee}, Eun and {Kwan Jun}, Jae",
year = "2019",
month = "6",
doi = "10.4048/jbc.2019.22.e24",
language = "English",
volume = "22",
pages = "311--325",
journal = "Journal of Breast Cancer",
issn = "1738-6756",
publisher = "Korean Breast Cancer Society",
number = "2",

}

Comparison of digital and screen-film mammography for breast-cancer screening : A systematic review and meta analysis. / Yeon Song, Soo; Park, Boyoung; Hong, Seri; Jung Kim, Min; Hye Lee, Eun; Kwan Jun, Jae.

In: Journal of Breast Cancer, Vol. 22, No. 2, 06.2019, p. 311-325.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of digital and screen-film mammography for breast-cancer screening

T2 - A systematic review and meta analysis

AU - Yeon Song, Soo

AU - Park, Boyoung

AU - Hong, Seri

AU - Jung Kim, Min

AU - Hye Lee, Eun

AU - Kwan Jun, Jae

PY - 2019/6

Y1 - 2019/6

N2 - Purpose: Digital mammography (DM) has replaced screen-film mammography (SFM). However, findings of comparisons between the performance indicators of DM and SFM for breast-cancer screening have been inconsistent. Moreover, the summarized results from studies comparing the performance of screening mammography according to device type vary over time. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the performance of DM and SFM using recently published data. Methods: The MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for paired studies, cohorts, and randomized controlled trials published through 2018 that compared the performance of DM and SFM. All studies comparing the diagnostic accuracy of DM and SFM in asymptomatic, average-risk women aged 40 years and older were included. Two reviewers independently assessed the study quality and extracted the data. Results: Thirteen studies were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity (DM, 0.76 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.70–0.81]; SFM, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.70–0.81]), specificity (DM, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.94–0.97]; SFM, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.94–0.98]), and area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (DM, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.92–0.96]; SFM, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.89–0.94]) were similar for both DM and SFM. The pooled screening performance indicators reinforced superior accuracy of full-field DM, which is a more advanced type of mammography, than SFM. The advantage of DM appeared greater among women aged 50 years or older. There was high heterogeneity among studies in the pooled sensitivity, specificity, and overall diagnostic accuracy estimates. Stratifying by study design (prospective or retrospective) and removing studies with a 2-year or greater follow-up period resulted in homogeneous overall diagnostic accuracy estimates. Conclusion: The breast-cancer screening performance of DM is similar to that of SFM. The diagnostic performance of DM depends on the study design, and, in terms of performance, full-field DM is superior to SFM, unlike computed radiography systems.

AB - Purpose: Digital mammography (DM) has replaced screen-film mammography (SFM). However, findings of comparisons between the performance indicators of DM and SFM for breast-cancer screening have been inconsistent. Moreover, the summarized results from studies comparing the performance of screening mammography according to device type vary over time. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the performance of DM and SFM using recently published data. Methods: The MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for paired studies, cohorts, and randomized controlled trials published through 2018 that compared the performance of DM and SFM. All studies comparing the diagnostic accuracy of DM and SFM in asymptomatic, average-risk women aged 40 years and older were included. Two reviewers independently assessed the study quality and extracted the data. Results: Thirteen studies were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity (DM, 0.76 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.70–0.81]; SFM, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.70–0.81]), specificity (DM, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.94–0.97]; SFM, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.94–0.98]), and area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (DM, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.92–0.96]; SFM, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.89–0.94]) were similar for both DM and SFM. The pooled screening performance indicators reinforced superior accuracy of full-field DM, which is a more advanced type of mammography, than SFM. The advantage of DM appeared greater among women aged 50 years or older. There was high heterogeneity among studies in the pooled sensitivity, specificity, and overall diagnostic accuracy estimates. Stratifying by study design (prospective or retrospective) and removing studies with a 2-year or greater follow-up period resulted in homogeneous overall diagnostic accuracy estimates. Conclusion: The breast-cancer screening performance of DM is similar to that of SFM. The diagnostic performance of DM depends on the study design, and, in terms of performance, full-field DM is superior to SFM, unlike computed radiography systems.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85073039415&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85073039415&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.4048/jbc.2019.22.e24

DO - 10.4048/jbc.2019.22.e24

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85073039415

VL - 22

SP - 311

EP - 325

JO - Journal of Breast Cancer

JF - Journal of Breast Cancer

SN - 1738-6756

IS - 2

ER -