Digital compared to screen-film mammography: breast cancer prognostic features in an organized screening program

Systematic review and meta-analysis of prognostic characteristics for breast cancers in populations with digital vs film mammography indicate the transition may have increased both early detection and overdiagnosis

OBJECTIVES

Film mammography has been replaced by digital mammography in breast screening programs globally. This led to a small increase in the rate of detection, but whether the detection of clinically important cancers increased is uncertain. We aimed to assess the impact on tumor characteristics of screen-detected and interval breast cancers.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We searched seven databases from inception to October 08, 2023, for publications comparing film and digital mammography within the same population of asymptomatic women at population (average) risk of breast cancer. We recorded reported tumor characteristics and assessed risk of bias using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions tool. We synthesized results using meta-analyses of random effects.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies were included in the analysis from 8 countries, including 11,592,225 screening examinations (8,117,781 film; 3,474,444 digital). There were no differences in tumor size, morphology, grade, node status, receptor status, or stage in the pooled differences for screen-detected and interval invasive cancer tumor characteristics. There were statistically significant increases in screen-detected ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) across all grades: 0.05 (0.00-0.11), 0.14 (0.05-0.22), and 0.19 (0.05-0.33) per 1000 screens for low, intermediate, and high-grade DCIS, respectively. There were similar (non-statistically significant) increases in screen-detected invasive cancer across all grades.

CONCLUSION

The increased detection of all grades of DCIS and invasive cancer may indicate both increased early detection of more aggressive disease and increased overdiagnosis.

Breast Cancer Stage and Size Detected with Film versus Digital Mammography in New South Wales, Australia: A Population-Based Study Using Routinely Collected Data

BACKGROUND

Digital mammography has replaced film mammography in breast-screening programs globally, including Australia. This led to an increase in the rate of detection, but whether there was increased detection of clinically important cancers is uncertain.

METHODS

In this population-wide retrospective cohort study in New South Wales, Australia spanning 2004 to 2016 and including 4,631,656 screens, there were 22,965 cancers in women screened with film (n = 11,040) or digital mammography (n = 11,925). We examined the change in tumor characteristics overall and how these rates changed over time, accounting for changes in background rates using an interrupted time-series. Comparisons were made with unscreened women (n = 26,326) during this time.

RESULTS

We found increased detection of in situ cancer (3.36 per 10,000 screens), localized invasive, and smaller-sized breast cancers attributable to the change in mammography technology, whereas screen-detected intermediate-sized and metastatic breast cancers decreased. Rates of early-stage and intermediate-sized interval cancers increased, and late-stage (-1.62 per 10,000 screens) and large interval cancers decreased. In unscreened women, there were small increases in the temporal trends of cancers across all stages.

CONCLUSIONS

At least some of the increased detection of smaller early-stage cancers may have translated into a reduction in larger and late-stage cancers, indicating beneficial detection of cancers that would have otherwise progressed. However, the increased detection of smaller early-stage and small cancers may also have increased over-diagnosis of lesions that would otherwise have not caused harm.

IMPACT

Robust evaluation of potential benefits and harms is needed after changes to screening programs. See related In the Spotlight, p. 638.

Implementation of a Novel Patient Decision Aid for Women with Elevated Breast Cancer Risk Who Are Considering MRI Screening: A Pilot Study

PURPOSE

To determine the feasibility and acceptability of using a patient decision aid (DA) for women with elevated breast cancer risk who are considering MRI screening.

METHODS

This pilot study employed a mixed methods design to develop, modify, and test an interactive DA. The DA was administered among a consecutive patient sample with an estimated Tyrer-Cuzick v.8 lifetime breast cancer risk of 20% or greater and without a pathologic genetic mutation. The decisional conflict scale was used to measure decisional conflict. Post-intervention provider and patient feedback evaluated shared decision-making, feasibility, and acceptability.

RESULTS

Twenty-four patients participated, with a median age of 44 years. Prior to DA use, sixteen patients (67%) were unsure whether to add MRI to their screening, six patients elected MRI (25%), and two patients declined MRI (8%). Following DA use, thirteen of sixteen of the initially undecided participants (81%) established a preference, with eleven electing to add MRI screening. Of participants with an initial preference, all maintained the same decision following use of the DA. Prior to the DA, the median decisional conflict score among participants was 25% (range 0-60%) compared with 0% (range 0-25%) after the DA. Healthcare providers reported that the DA was useful and easily incorporated into clinical workflow.

CONCLUSIONS

This pilot study shows that there may be a benefit to DA utilization in the high-risk breast cancer clinic to guide shared decision-making in establishing a screening preference. The findings warrant further research to test the use of the DA in a larger, multi-site trial.

Mammography screening: A major issue in medicine

Breast cancer mortality is declining in most high-income countries. The role of mammography screening in these declines is much debated. Screening impacts cancer mortality through decreasing the incidence of number of advanced cancers with poor prognosis, while therapies and patient management impact cancer mortality through decreasing the fatality of cancers. The effectiveness of cancer screening is the ability of a screening method to curb the incidence of advanced cancers in populations. Methods for evaluating cancer screening effectiveness are based on the monitoring of age-adjusted incidence rates of advanced cancers that should decrease after the introduction of screening. Likewise, cancer-specific mortality rates should decline more rapidly in areas with screening than in areas without or with lower levels of screening but where patient management is similar. These two criteria have provided evidence that screening for colorectal and cervical cancer contributes to decreasing the mortality associated with these two cancers. In contrast, screening for neuroblastoma in children was discontinued in the early 2000s because these two criteria were not met. In addition, overdiagnosis - i.e. the detection of non-progressing occult neuroblastoma that would not have been life-threatening during the subject's lifetime - is a major undesirable consequence of screening. Accumulating epidemiological data show that in populations where mammography screening has been widespread for a long time, there has been no or only a modest decline in the incidence of advanced cancers, including that of de novo metastatic (stage IV) cancers at diagnosis. Moreover, breast cancer mortality reductions are similar in areas with early introduction and high penetration of screening and in areas with late introduction and low penetration of screening. Overdiagnosis is commonplace, representing 20% or more of all breast cancers among women invited to screening and 30-50% of screen-detected cancers. Overdiagnosis leads to overtreatment and inflicts considerable physical, psychological and economic harm on many women. Overdiagnosis has also exerted considerable disruptive effects on the interpretation of clinical outcomes expressed in percentages (instead of rates) or as overall survival (instead of mortality rates or stage-specific survival). Rates of radical mastectomies have not decreased following the introduction of screening and keep rising in some countries (e.g. the United States of America (USA)). Hence, the epidemiological picture of mammography screening closely resembles that of screening for neuroblastoma. Reappraisals of Swedish mammography trials demonstrate that the design and statistical analysis of these trials were different from those of all trials on screening for cancers other than breast cancer. We found compelling indications that these trials overestimated reductions in breast cancer mortality associated with screening, in part because of the statistical analyses themselves, in part because of improved therapies and underreporting of breast cancer as the underlying cause of death in screening groups. In this regard, Swedish trials should publish the stage-specific breast cancer mortality rates for the screening and control groups separately. Results of the Greater New York Health Insurance Plan trial are biased because of the underreporting of breast cancer cases and deaths that occurred in women who did not participate in screening. After 17 years of follow-up, the United Kingdom (UK) Age Trial showed no benefit from mammography screening starting at age 39-41. Until around 2005, most proponents of breast screening backed the monitoring of changes in advanced cancer incidence and comparative studies on breast cancer mortality for the evaluation of breast screening effectiveness. However, in an attempt to mitigate the contradictions between results of mammography trials and population data, breast-screening proponents have elected to change the criteria for the evaluation of cancer screening effectiveness, giving precedence to incidence-based mortality (IBM) and case-control studies. But practically all IBM studies on mammography screening have a strong ecological component in their design. The two IBM studies done in Norway that meet all methodological requirements do not document significant reductions in breast cancer mortality associated with mammography screening. Because of their propensity to exaggerate the health benefits of screening, case-control studies may demonstrate that mammography screening could reduce the risk of death from diseases other than breast cancer. Numerous statistical model approaches have been conducted for estimating the contributions of screening and of patient management to reductions in breast cancer mortality. Unverified assumptions are needed for running these models. For instance, many models assume that if screening had not occurred, the majority of screen-detected asymptomatic cancers would have progressed to symptomatic advanced cancers. This assumption is not grounded in evidence because a large proportion of screen-detected breast cancers represent overdiagnosis and hence non-progressing tumours. The accumulation of population data in well-screened populations diminishes the relevance of model approaches. The comparison of the performance of different screening modalities - e.g. mammography, digital mammography, ultrasonography, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), three-dimensional tomosynthesis (TDT) - concentrates on detection rates, which is the ability of a technique to detect more cancers than other techniques. However, a greater detection rate tells little about the capacity to prevent interval and advanced cancers and could just reflect additional overdiagnosis. Studies based on the incidence of advanced cancers and on the evaluation of overdiagnosis should be conducted before marketing new breast-imaging technologies. Women at high risk of breast cancer (i.e. 30% lifetime risk and more), such as women with BRCA1/2 mutations, require a close breast surveillance. MRI is the preferred imaging method until more radical risk-reduction options are eventually adopted. For women with an intermediate risk of breast cancer (i.e. 10-29% lifetime risk), including women with extremely dense breast at mammography, there is no evidence that more frequent mammography screening or screening with other modalities actually reduces the risk of breast cancer death. A plethora of epidemiological data shows that, since 1985, progress in the management of breast cancer patients has led to marked reductions in stage-specific breast cancer mortality, even for patients with disseminated disease (i.e. stage IV cancer) at diagnosis. In contrast, the epidemiological data point to a marginal contribution of mammography screening in the decline in breast cancer mortality. Moreover, the more effective the treatments, the less favourable are the harm-benefit balance of screening mammography. New, effective methods for breast screening are needed, as well as research on risk-based screening strategies.

Detection Rate, Recall Rate, and Positive Predictive Value of Digital Compared to Screen-Film Mammography in the Quebec Population-Based Breast Cancer Screening Program

PURPOSE

The study sought to compare performance indicators of computed radiography (CR) using different plate readers, digital direct radiography (DR), and screen-film mammography (SFM) in a population-based screening program.

METHODS

This analysis involved women 50-69 years of age who participated in the breast screening program of Quebec (Canada) and who had screening mammogram between January 1, 2007, and September 30, 2012. The detection rate, recall rate, and positive predictive value of CR (n = 672,125 mammograms) and DR (n = 60,023) were compared to SFM (n = 782,894) using mixed-effect logistic regression, adjusting for potential confounders. No institutional review board approval was required.

RESULTS

CR was not associated with change in cancer detection rate (odds ratio [OR]: 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.88-1.03), but with a small increase in recall rate (OR: 1.03; 95% CI: 1.01-1.06) compared to SFM. The association of CR with recall rate varies with the CR plate reader manufacturer (P < .0001). DR was not associated with change in detection rate (OR: 1.06; 95% CI: 0.89-1.25), but with an increase in the recall rate (OR: 1.25; 95% CI: 1.19-1.30) compared to SFM.

CONCLUSIONS

In our screening program, digital mammograms gave detection rates equivalent to those of SFM, but with an increase of recall rate, particularly for DR. If this situation persists, the adoption of DR may increase the adverse effects of screening with little or no benefit for women.

Digital Compared with Screen-Film Mammography: Measures of Diagnostic Accuracy among Women Screened in the Ontario Breast Screening Program

PURPOSE

To compare measures of diagnostic accuracy between large concurrent cohorts of women screened with digital computed radiography (CR), direct radiography (DR), and screen-film mammography (SFM).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was approved by the University of Toronto Research Ethics Board; informed consent was not required. Three concurrent cohorts of women aged 50-74 years who were screened from 2008-2009 in the Ontario Breast Screening Program with SFM (487,334 screening examinations, 403,688 women), DR (254,758 screening examinations, 220,520 women), or CR (74,140 screening examinations, 64,210 women) were followed for 2 years or until breast cancer diagnosis. Breast cancers were classified as screening-detected or interval on the basis of the woman's final screening and assessment results. Interval cancer rate (per 10 000 negative screening examinations), sensitivity, and specificity were compared across the cohorts by using mixed-effects logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Interval cancer rates were higher, although not significantly so, for CR (15.2 per 10,000; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 12.8, 17.8) and were similar for DR (13.7 per 10,000; 95% CI: 12.4, 15.0) compared with SFM (13.0 per 10,000; 95% CI: 12.1, 13.9). For CR versus SFM, specificity was similar while sensitivity was significantly lower (odds ratio [OR] = 0.62; 95% CI: 0.47, 0.83; P = .001), particularly for invasive cancers detected at a rescreening examination, for women with breast density of less than 75%, for women with no family history, and for postmenopausal women. For DR versus SFM, sensitivity was similar while specificity was lower (OR = 0.92; 95% CI: 0.87, 0.98; P = .01), particularly for rescreening examinations, for women aged 60-74 years, for women with breast density of less than 75%, for women with a family history, and for women who were postmenopausal.

CONCLUSION

Given the 38% lower sensitivity of CR imaging systems compared with SFM, programs should assess the continued use of this technology for breast screening.