Follow-up and final results of the oslo I study comparing screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading
Authors: Skaane P. , Skjennald A. , Young K. , Egge E. , Jebsen I. , Sager E. M. , Scheel B. , SØvik E. , Ertzaas A. K. , Hofvind S. , Abdelnoor M. 
Published: November 2005

Purpose: To compare cancer detection rates of screen-film (SFM) and full-field digital mammography (FFDM) with soft-copy reading in a screening program including the initial positive scores for interval cancers and cancers in the subsequent screening round, and to analyze the false-negative FFDM interpretations. Material and Methods: Using a paired study design, 3683 women underwent SFM and FFDM in a population-based screening program. Two standard views of each breast were acquired. The images were interpreted without previous films for comparison. Independent double reading using a 5-point rating scale for probability of cancer was used for each modality. An examination was defined as positive if at least one of the two independent readers scored 2 or higher on the 5-point rating scale. SFM-positive cases were discussed in a SFM consensus meeting and FFDM-positive cases in a separate FFDM consensus meeting before recall. The study population was followed for more than 2 years so that interval cancers and screen-detected cancers in the subsequent screening round could be included. Cancer detection rates were compared using the McNemar test for paired proportions. The kappa statistic and Wilcoxon signed-rank test for matched pairs were used for comparing rating scores. The reading time was recorded for all FFDM interpretations. Results: A total of 31 cancers (detection rate 0.84%) were diagnosed initially, of which SFM detected 28 and FFDM 23 (McNemar test P = 0.23, discordant pair 8 and 3). Two cancers with a positive score at initial SFM reading and three with a positive score at initial FFDM reading were dismissed at SFM and FFDM consensus meetings, respectively. The difference in cancer detection after recall (discordant pair 11 and 5) was not significant (McNemar test, P = 0.21). Of the 10 interval cancers and 16 screen-detected cancers in the subsequent round, 3 had true-positive SFM scores while 4 had true-positive FFDM scores in the initial reading session. A total of 38 cancers therefore had a positive result at double reading at one or both modalities, 31 at SFM and 27 at FFDM (McNemar test, P = 0.48). Comparison of SFM and FFDM interpretations using the mean score for each case revealed no statistically significant difference between the two modalities (Wilcoxon signed-rank test for matched pairs; P-value = 0.228). Two initial round cancers (one tumor found incidentally at work-up for a mass proved to be a simple cyst with a positive score at FFDM but a negative score at SFM, and one tumor with positive score at SFM but negative score at FFDM due to positioning failure) were excluded from the further analysis. Excluding these two cancers from comparison, there were 31% (22 of 72) false-negative SFM and 47% (34 of 72) false-negative FFDM individual interpretations. The overall mean interpretation time for normal FFDM examinations was 45 s. For most false-negative FFDM results, the reading time was shorter or longer than for normal examinations. The recorded FFDM interpretation time was noticeably short for several overlooked cancers manifesting as microcalcifications (ductal carcinoma in situ). Conclusion: There is no statistically significant difference in cancer detection rate between SFM and FFDM with soft-copy reading in a mammography screening program. Analysis of cancers missed at FFDM with soft-copy reading indicates that close attention has to be paid to systematic use of image display protocols.