Introduction of one-view tomosynthesis in population-based mammography screening: Impact on detection rate, interval cancer rate and false-positive rate

被引:0
|
作者
Vilmun, Bolette Mikela [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Napolitano, George [4 ]
Lillholm, Martin [5 ,6 ]
Winkel, Rikke Rass [1 ,7 ]
Lynge, Elsebeth [8 ]
Nielsen, Mads [5 ,6 ]
Nielsen, Michael Bachmann [1 ,3 ]
Carlsen, Jonathan Frederik [1 ,3 ]
von Euler-Chelpin, My [4 ]
Vejborg, Ilse [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Copenhagen Univ Hosp, Dept Diagnost Radiol, Copenhagen, Denmark
[2] Copenhagen Univ Hosp Herlev & Gentofte, Dept Breast Examinat, Gentofte Hosp Vej 1, DK-2900 Hellerup, Denmark
[3] Univ Copenhagen, Dept Clin Med, Copenhagen, Denmark
[4] Univ Copenhagen, Dept Publ Hlth, Copenhagen, Denmark
[5] Biomediq AS, Dragor, Denmark
[6] Univ Copenhagen, Dept Psychol, Copenhagen, Denmark
[7] Copenhagen Univ Hosp Herlev & Gentofte, Dept Radiol, Hellerup, Denmark
[8] Univ Copenhagen, Nykobing Falster Hosp, Nykobing, Denmark
关键词
Breast cancer; screening; mammography; digital breast tomosynthesis; digital mammography; DIGITAL BREAST TOMOSYNTHESIS; PERFORMANCE; OUTCOMES; TRIAL;
D O I
10.1177/09691413241262259
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
Objective To assess performance endpoints of a combination of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and full-field digital mammography (FFDM) compared with FFDM only in breast cancer screening. Materials and methods This was a prospective population-based screening study, including eligible (50-69 years) women attending the Capital Region Mammography Screening Program in Denmark. All attending women were offered FFDM. A subgroup was consecutively allocated to a screening room with DBT. All FFDM and DBT underwent independent double reading, and all women were followed up for 2 years after screening date or until next screening date, whichever came first. Results 6353 DBT + FFDM and 395 835 FFDM were included in the analysis and were undertaken in 196 267 women in the period from 1 November 2012 to 12 December 2018. Addition of DBT increased sensitivity: 89.9% (95% confidence interval (CI): 81.0-95.5) for DBT + FFDM and 70.1% (95% CI: 68.6-71.6) for FFDM only, p < 0.001. Specificity remained similar: 98.2% (95% CI: 97.9-98.5) for DBT + FFDM and 98.3% (95% CI: 98.2-98.3) for FFDM only, p = 0.9. Screen-detected cancer rate increased statistically significantly: 11.18/1000 for DBT + FFDM and 6.49/1000 for FFDM only, p < 0.001. False-positive rate was unchanged: 1.75% for DBT + FFDM and 1.73% for FFDM only, p = 0.9. Positive predictive value for recall was 39.0% (95% CI: 31.9-46.5) for DBT + FFDM and 27.3% (95% CI: 26.4-28.2), for FFDM only, p < 0.0005. The interval cancer rate decreased: 1.26/1000 for DBT + FFDM and 2.76/1000 for FFDM only, p = 0.02. Conclusion DBT + FFDM yielded a statistically significant increase in cancer detection and program sensitivity.
引用
收藏
页码:28 / 34
页数:7
相关论文
empty
未找到相关数据