Digital mammography for breast cancer screening, surveillance and diagnosis

Merlin T, Hedayati H, Wang S, Sullivan T, Newton S, Buckley E, Kreisz F, Zimprich C, Hiller JE
Record ID 32008100120
English
Original Title: Application 37
Authors' results and conclusions: Safety - The literature identified in the systematic review suggests that the radiation exposure from digital mammography (DM) is equivalent to that from film-screen mammography (FM). However, phantom studies of more recent mammography units suggest that the radiation dose from DM is likely to be lower than that from FM. It can therefore be concluded that DM is as safe as, or safer than, FM in regards to radiation dose. Effectiveness - As a potential replacement for FM, DM is as accurate when used as a screening method in asymptomatic women. The case for replacing FM is not obvious overall, given the similar accuracy and cancer detection rates of the two methods. DM would, however, appear to be a reasonable alternative to FM on the basis of the population-based effectiveness data alone. In contrast, DM is more accurate in detecting breast cancer in women who are conventionally difficult to image with FM, specifically women aged under 50 years, those who are pre- or perimenopausal, and those with heterogeneously dense or extremely dense breasts. Thus DM should replace or be used in addition to FM in these women (although the latter increases the cumulative radiation risk). If DM replaces FM for screening asymptomatic women who are aged under 50 years, pre- or perimenopausal, or have dense breasts, it is likely that the mortality reduction would be higher than currently seen in these subgroups. For the diagnosis of women at potentially high risk or symptomatic women, it is unclear whether DM is as effective as FM. Although no significant differences in the diagnostic properties of the two methods have been reported in the literature, it is difficult to make any strong conclusions on the available evidence. There is currently no evidence to suggest that DM should be used in addition to FM in a symptomatic or surveillance population.
Details
Project Status: Completed
Year Published: 2008
URL for published report: Not Available
English language abstract: An English language summary is available
Publication Type: Not Assigned
Country: Australia
MeSH Terms
  • Mammography
  • Mass Screening
  • Radiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted
Contact
Organisation Name: Adelaide Health Technology Assessment
Contact Address: School of Public Health, Mail Drop 545, University of Adelaide, Adelaide SA 5005, AUSTRALIA, Tel: +61 8 8313 4617
Contact Name: ahta@adelaide.edu.au
Contact Email: ahta@adelaide.edu.au
Copyright: Adelaide Health Technology Assessment (AHTA)
This is a bibliographic record of a published health technology assessment from a member of INAHTA or other HTA producer. No evaluation of the quality of this assessment has been made for the HTA database.