{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2023,10,3]],"date-time":"2023-10-03T08:10:44Z","timestamp":1696320644600},"reference-count":15,"publisher":"Wiley","issue":"4","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2017,2,9]],"date-time":"2017-02-09T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1486598400000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"http:\/\/onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/termsAndConditions#vor"}],"funder":[{"DOI":"10.13039\/100008613","name":"Wesley Research Institute","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","id":[{"id":"10.13039\/100008613","id-type":"DOI","asserted-by":"publisher"}]}],"content-domain":{"domain":["onlinelibrary.wiley.com"],"crossmark-restriction":true},"short-container-title":["J Med Imag Rad Onc"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2017,8]]},"abstract":"Abstract<\/jats:title>Introduction<\/jats:title>Modern full\u2010field digital mammography (FFDM<\/jats:styled-content>) appears to have increased the detection of breast microcalcification. This retrospective study aimed to assess whether this is associated with over\u2010investigation and possible over\u2010diagnosis of breast pathology of lesser significance.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec>Methods<\/jats:title>Three 2\u2010year periods were studied, in which different mammographic technologies were used exclusively viz., classical screen\u2010film mammography (SFM<\/jats:styled-content>) in 2003\u201304, computed radiography (CR<\/jats:styled-content>) in 2009\u201310 and FFDM<\/jats:styled-content> in 2012\u201313. The study was limited to women in whom biopsy was done for indeterminate, suspicious or malignant (ISM<\/jats:styled-content>) calcification as the only<\/jats:italic> mammographic abnormality.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec>Results<\/jats:title>Between the first and the third time periods, the use of core biopsies and vacuum\u2010assisted biopsies (VAB<\/jats:styled-content>s) for \u2018ISM<\/jats:styled-content> calcification only\u2019 increased from 0. 6% to 1.4% of all mammograms, and biopsies with malignant results increased from 0.18% to 0.33% of all mammograms. VAB<\/jats:styled-content> became the preferred technique for biopsy over the study period. The proportion of cores and VAB<\/jats:styled-content>s with a malignant result did not change significantly over the three time periods (24\u201328%), nor did the proportion of invasive cancers, ductal carcinoma in\u00a0situ (DCIS<\/jats:styled-content>) (60\u201363%) or atypia on subsequent excision. The proportion of DCIS<\/jats:styled-content> which was of high grade was greatest in the FFDM<\/jats:styled-content> era (69%). Less than 9% of DCIS<\/jats:styled-content> were of low grade in all three time periods.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec>Conclusions<\/jats:title>Despite increased numbers of biopsies being performed, there was no increase in findings of breast pathology of lesser significance. Improved technology (FFDM<\/jats:styled-content> and VAB<\/jats:styled-content>) allows immediate biopsy of small clusters of indeterminate microcalcification, rather than using mammographic surveillance, and this study found no evidence that this has been associated with over\u2010investigation or over\u2010diagnosis.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.1111\/1754-9485.12581","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2017,2,10]],"date-time":"2017-02-10T04:57:11Z","timestamp":1486702631000},"page":"470-475","update-policy":"http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1002\/crossmark_policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":1,"title":["Full\u2010field digital mammography: Is the apparent increased detection of microcalcification leading to over\u2010investigation and over\u2010diagnosis?"],"prefix":"10.1111","volume":"61","author":[{"given":"Alan J","family":"Porter","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"Wesley Breast Clinic Wesley Hospital Brisbane Queensland Australia"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Elizabeth B","family":"Evans","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Wesley Breast Clinic Wesley Hospital Brisbane Queensland Australia"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Lisa M","family":"Erzetich","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Wesley Breast Clinic Wesley Hospital Brisbane Queensland Australia"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]}],"member":"311","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2017,2,9]]},"reference":[{"key":"e_1_2_6_2_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1080\/02841850802563269"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_3_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1148\/radiol.12111461"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_4_1","first-page":"1010","article-title":"Comparison of mammography and screen\u2010film mammography in breast cancer screening: a review in the Irish breast screening program","volume":"193","author":"Hambley NH","year":"2009","journal-title":"AJR Women's Imag"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_5_1","first-page":"860","article-title":"Full\u2010field digital versus screening\u2010film mammography: comparative accuracy in concurrent screening cohorts","volume":"189","author":"Turco MR","year":"2007","journal-title":"AJR Women's Imag"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_6_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1007\/s00330-010-1968-3"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_7_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1111\/1754-9485.12298"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_8_1","first-page":"1698","article-title":"Screen film vs full\u2010field digital mammography: image quality, detectability and characterization of lesions","volume":"12","author":"Obenauer S","year":"2002","journal-title":"Eur Radiol"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_9_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.breast.2005.06.001"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_10_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1007\/s13244-010-0064-1"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_11_1","unstructured":"Non\u2010operative diagnosis subgroup of the national co\u2010ordinating group for breast screening pathology.Guidelines for non\u2010operative diagnostic procedures and reporting in breast cancer screening 2001 NHSBSP publication no. 50."},{"key":"e_1_2_6_12_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1002\/cncr.11887"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_13_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.5152\/dir.2014.14139"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_14_1","volume-title":"American College of Radiology","author":"Illustrated Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System","year":"2013"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_15_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1136\/jms.8.3.149"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_16_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1111\/tbj.12039"}],"container-title":["Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/api.wiley.com\/onlinelibrary\/tdm\/v1\/articles\/10.1111%2F1754-9485.12581","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/pdf\/10.1111\/1754-9485.12581","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2023,10,2]],"date-time":"2023-10-02T13:36:54Z","timestamp":1696253814000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/10.1111\/1754-9485.12581"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2017,2,9]]},"references-count":15,"journal-issue":{"issue":"4","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2017,8]]}},"alternative-id":["10.1111\/1754-9485.12581"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/1754-9485.12581","archive":["Portico"],"relation":{},"ISSN":["1754-9477","1754-9485"],"issn-type":[{"value":"1754-9477","type":"print"},{"value":"1754-9485","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2017,2,9]]},"assertion":[{"value":"2016-07-11","order":0,"name":"received","label":"Received","group":{"name":"publication_history","label":"Publication History"}},{"value":"2016-12-08","order":1,"name":"accepted","label":"Accepted","group":{"name":"publication_history","label":"Publication History"}},{"value":"2017-02-09","order":2,"name":"published","label":"Published","group":{"name":"publication_history","label":"Publication History"}}]}}