Lightscanning versus mammography for the detection of breast cancer in screening and clinical practice. A Swedish multicenter study

✍ Scribed by A. Alveryd; I. Andersson; K. Aspegren; G. Balldin; N. Bjurstam; G. Edström; G. Fagerberg; U. Glas; O. Jarlman; S. A. Larsson; E. Lidbrink; H. Lingaas; M. Löfgren; C.-M. Rudenstam; L. Strender; L. Samuelsson; L. Tabàr; A. Taube; H. Wallberg; P. Åkesson; D. Hallberg

• Publisher: John Wiley and Sons
• Year: 1990
• Tongue: English
• Weight: 561 KB
• Volume: 65
• Category: Article
• ISSN: 0008-543X
• DOI: 10.1002/1097-0142(19900415)65:8<1671::aid-cncr2820650802>3.0.co;2-a

✦ Synopsis

State of the art lightscanning of the breast was tested against mammography in 2568 women in a Swedish multicenter study. The study was in two parts. One was in women with symptoms from the breasts (the clinical study) comprising 3178 examined breasts with 198 cancers; the other in asymptomatic women (the screening study) comprising 1909 examined breasts with 126 cancers. In women with symptoms from the breasts, lightscanning did not contribute to clinical examination and mammography. In the screening situation, it was poor to pick up small cancers. Mammography alone falsely diagnosed cancer in 6.9% of the patients whereas lightscan falsely diagnosed cancer in 19.1%. Lightscan was not better than mammography in young women. The study shows that lightscanning in its current form is inferior to standard mammography. Cancer 65:1671-1677.1990.

ODERN MAMMOGRAPHY is an efficient tool for the M diagnosis of cancer of the breast. However, cancers are sometimes not seen in dense breasts and lobular carcinoma in situ cannot be diagnosed by mammography.

Intraductal, noninvasive cancer without microcalcifications poses another problem. The use of ionizing radiation is also a matter of concern since there is a hypothetical risk of cancer induction, especially in young women.