Keywords
Digital
Precisión
Sensibilidad
Cáncer
Mama Digital
Mammography
Sensitivity and specificity
Breast
Cancer
Radiography
How to Cite
Abstract
Introduction: digitalization of mammography has introduced significant changes in the process of identifying suspicious of breast cancer. The aim is to assess the accuracy of digitalization of mammography service in the diagnosis of breast cancer compared with conventional mammography. Methods: two groups were included: one, with conventional mammography and other with digitalized. Mammographic technique used was standard for both groups. The interpretation of images was assessed by three radiologists, according to standard Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI RADS) in film mammography or computed radiography (CR). We included only patients undergoing stereotactic and/or ultrasound-guided biopsy with pathology report. Correlation between BI RADS and pathology was analyzed. Sensitivity, Specificity, PPV and receiveroperating-characteristic (ROC) were used. Results: a total of 228 patients were evaluated; 96 with conventional mammography, and 131 in CR. Prevalence of breast cancer was 19.7% and 38.2% in conventional and CR mammography respectively. When evaluating the conventional group, we found a sensitivity of 89.5% (95%CI :65.5-98 .2), with a PPV: 27.9% (95%CI:17.5-41), while in the CR group was 98% (95% :88-99 .9), with a PPV: 47.6% (95% CI :37.7-57 .6). No difference was found between area under the curve for conventional 0.66(95%CI:0.57-0.75) and CR mammography 0.65 (95%CI:0.60-0.71),(p=0.9). Conclusion: the digitalization may slightly increase the accuracy of mammography for breast cancer detection compared with the conventional method. Although additional studies are needed to reduce unnecessary biopsies, we conclude that this method in association with an imaging-guided biopsy could avoid more open biopsies.
References
Ministerio de Salud - Dirección General de Promoción y Prevención. Norma Técnica para la Detección Temprana del Cáncer de Seno. Basado en: Guías de Práctica Clínica Basadas en la Evidencia. Tamizaje en cáncer Ginecológico. Primera edición. Ed. Maldonado. Bogotá. Col. 1997.
Stoopen M, García R. Avances en diagnóstico por imágenes: Mama. Ediciones Journal. Año 2010.
Sanabria A, Romero J. La mamografía como método de tamizaje para el cáncer de seno en Colombia. Rev Colomb Cir. 2005; 20: 158-63.
Hernández G, Herrán S., Canto LF.. Análisis de las tendencias de mortalidad por cáncer de mama en Colombia y Bogotá, 1981-2000. Rev Colomb Cancerol 2007;11(1):32-39.
Fletcher S, Elmore J. Mammographic Screening for Breast Cancer. N Engl J Med 2003; 348: 1672-1680. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMcp021804
American Cancer Society Guidelines for Breast Cancer Screening: Update 2003. CA Cancer J Clin 2003; 54: 141-169. https://doi.org/10.3322/canjclin.53.3.141
American Cancer Society Guidelines for the Early Detection of Cancer. CA Cancer J Clin 2004; 54: 41-52. https://doi.org/10.3322/canjclin.54.1.41
Committee on technologies for the early detection of breast cancer. Mammography and Beyond: Developing Technologies for the Early Detection of Breast Cancer. Washington, D.D. National Academy Press, 2001.
Shtern F. Digital mammography and related technologies: a perspective from the National Cancer Institute. Radiology 1992; 183: 629-30. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.183.3.1584908
Skaane P, Skjennald A. Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with softcopy reading: randomized trial in a population- based screening program-the Oslo II study. Radiology 2004; 232: 197-204. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2321031624
Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E. DMIST Investigators Group. Diagnostic performance of digital vs. film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2005; 353 (17):1773-83. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa052911
González A. Saldarriaga X. Estudio comparativo de hallazgos mamográficos entre mamografía convencional y mamografía digital. Rev. Colomb. Radiolog. 2007; 18:(2):2117-21.
American College of Radiology .ACR-BI-RADS. En: ACR Breast Imaging reporting and data system. Breast imaging atlas. 4th Ed. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2003.
Rafferty EA.Digital Mammography: Novel Applications. Radiol Clin N Am 45 (2007) 831-843. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcl.2007.06.005
Shapiro S, Venet W, Strax P, et al. Ten to fourteen year effect of screening on breast cancer mortality. J Natl Cancer Inst 1982; 69(2):349-55.
Tabar L, Fagarberg CJ, Gad A, et al. Reduction in mortality from breast cancer after mass screening with mammography. Lancet 1985;1(8433): 829-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(85)92204-4
Tabar L, Vitak B, Chen HH, et al. Beyond randomized controlled trials: organized mammographic screening substantially reduces breast cancer mortality. Cancer 2001; 91(9):1724-31. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(20010501)91:9<1724::AID-CNCR1190>3.0.CO;2-V
Tabar L, Vitak B, Chen HH, et al. The Swedish TwoCounty Trial twenty years later. Updated mortality results and new insights from long term follow-up. Radiol Clin North Am 2000; 38(4):625-51.
Kim HH, Pisano ED, Cole EB. Comparison of calcification specificity in digital mammography using soft-copy display versus screen-film mammography. AJR 2006; 187: 47-50. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.05.0187
Zweig MH, Campbell G. Receiver-Operating Characteristic (ROC) Plots: A fundamental evaluation tool in clinical medicine. Clin Chem 1993; 39:561-577. https://doi.org/10.1093/clinchem/39.4.561
Ruiz A., Morillo M. Epidemiología Clínica. Investigación clínica aplicada. Editorial Médica Internacional, 2008