Detection Rates for Benign and Malignant Diagnoses on Breast Cancer Screening With Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in a Statewide Mammography Registry Study

被引:18
作者
Fujii, Mayo H. [1 ]
Herschorn, Sally D. [2 ,3 ]
Sowden, Michelle [1 ,3 ]
Hotaling, Elise L. [2 ,3 ]
Vacek, Pamela M. [3 ,4 ]
Weaver, Donald L. [3 ,5 ]
Sprague, Brian L. [1 ,2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Vermont, Dept Surg, 1 S Prospect St,UHC Rm 4425, Burlington, VT 05401 USA
[2] Univ Vermont, Dept Radiol, Burlington, VT 05405 USA
[3] Univ Vermont, Canc Ctr, Burlington, VT 05405 USA
[4] Univ Vermont, Dept Biostat, Burlington, VT USA
[5] Univ Vermont, Dept Pathol, Burlington, VT 05405 USA
关键词
breast cancer screening; digital breast tomosynthesis; mammography; IMPLEMENTATION; COMBINATION; ACCURACY; OUTCOMES;
D O I
10.2214/AJR.18.20255
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
OBJECTIVE. The objective of our study was to determine whether detection rates of specific benign and malignant diagnoses differ for breast cancer screening with digital breast to-mosynthesis (DBT) versus full-field digital mammography (FFDM) alone. MATERIALS AND METHODS. We analyzed observational data from the Vermont Breast Cancer Surveillance System, including 86,349 DBT screening examinations and 97,378 FFDM screening examinations performed at eight radiology facilities in Vermont that adopted DBT screening during 2012-2016. We determined the most severe diagnosis made within 6 months after positive screening examinations. Multivariable-adjusted logistic regression was used to compare detection rates for specific diagnoses on DBT versus FFDM. RESULTS. Compared with FFDM, DBT had a lower recall rate (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.81; 95% CI, 0.77-0.85) but comparable biopsy rate (OR = 1.05; 95% CI, 0.93-1.17), benign biopsy rate (OR = 1.12; 95% CI, 0.97-1.29), and cancer detection rate (OR = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.78-1.14). Among benign diagnoses, DBT and FFDM had comparable detection rates for nonproliferative lesions (OR = 1.19; 95% CI, 0.92-1.53), fibroepithelial proliferations (OR = 1.24; 95% CI, 0.85-1.81), proliferative lesions without atypia (OR = 1.13; 95% CI, 0.90-1.42), atypical lesions (OR = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.43-1.38), and lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) (OR = 0.92; 95% CI, 0.53-1.61). Among malignant diagnoses, DBT and FFDM had comparable detection rates for ductal carcinoma in situ (OR = 1.05; 95% CI, 0.70-1.57) and invasive breast cancer (OR = 0.92; 95% CI, 0.74-1.13), with no statistically significant differences in detection of invasive ductal carcinoma (OR = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.66-1.06), invasive lobular carcinoma (OR = 1.11; 95% CI, 0.59-2.07), or invasive mixed ductal-lobular carcinoma (OR = 1.49; 95% CI, 0.65-3.39). CONCLUSION. Compared with FFDM, breast cancer screening with DBT has a lower recall rate while detecting a similar distribution of benign and malignant diagnoses.
引用
收藏
页码:706 / 711
页数:6
相关论文
共 26 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2013, ACR BIRADS ATLAS BRE
[2]  
[Anonymous], J NATL CANC I
[3]   Breast Cancer Characteristics Associated with 2D Digital Mammography versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Screening-detected and Interval Cancers [J].
Bahl, Manisha ;
Gaffney, Shannon ;
McCarthy, Anne Marie ;
Lowry, Kathryn P. ;
Dang, Pragya A. ;
Lehman, Constance D. .
RADIOLOGY, 2018, 287 (01) :49-57
[4]   Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study [J].
Ciatto, Stefano ;
Houssami, Nehmat ;
Bernardi, Daniela ;
Caumo, Francesca ;
Pellegrini, Marco ;
Brunelli, Silvia ;
Tuttobene, Paola ;
Bricolo, Paola ;
Fanto, Carmine ;
Valentini, Marvi ;
Montemezzi, Stefania ;
Macaskill, Petra .
LANCET ONCOLOGY, 2013, 14 (07) :583-589
[5]   Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography compared to digital mammography alone: a cohort study within the PROSPR consortium [J].
Conant, Emily F. ;
Beaber, Elisabeth F. ;
Sprague, Brian L. ;
Herschorn, Sally D. ;
Weaver, Donald L. ;
Onega, Tracy ;
Tosteson, Anna N. A. ;
McCarthy, Anne Marie ;
Poplack, Steven P. ;
Haas, Jennifer S. ;
Armstrong, Katrina ;
Schnall, Mitchell D. ;
Barlow, William E. .
BREAST CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT, 2016, 156 (01) :109-116
[6]   Comparison of digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis in the detection of architectural distortion [J].
Dibble, Elizabeth H. ;
Lourenco, Ana P. ;
Baird, Grayson L. ;
Ward, Robert C. ;
Maynard, A. Stanley ;
Mainiero, Martha B. .
EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2018, 28 (01) :3-10
[7]   Early Clinical Experience with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Screening Mammography [J].
Durand, Melissa A. ;
Haas, Brian M. ;
Yao, Xiaopan ;
Geisel, Jaime L. ;
Raghu, Madhavi ;
Hooley, Regina J. ;
Horvath, Laura J. ;
Philpotts, Liane E. .
RADIOLOGY, 2015, 274 (01) :85-92
[8]   Breast Cancer Screening Using Tomosynthesis in Combination With Digital Mammography [J].
Friedewald, Sarah M. ;
Rafferty, Elizabeth A. ;
Rose, Stephen L. ;
Durand, Melissa A. ;
Plecha, Donna M. ;
Greenberg, Julianne S. ;
Hayes, Mary K. ;
Copit, Debra S. ;
Carlson, Kara L. ;
Cink, Thomas M. ;
Barke, Lora D. ;
Greer, Linda N. ;
Miller, Dave P. ;
Conant, Emily F. .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2014, 311 (24) :2499-2507
[9]   CONFIDENCE-INTERVALS RATHER THAN P-VALUES - ESTIMATION RATHER THAN HYPOTHESIS-TESTING [J].
GARDNER, MJ ;
ALTMAN, DG .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1986, 292 (6522) :746-750
[10]   Clinical Performance Metrics of 3D Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Compared With 2D Digital Mammography for Breast Cancer Screening in Community Practice [J].
Greenberg, Julianne S. ;
Javitt, Marcia C. ;
Katzen, Jason ;
Michael, Sara ;
Holland, Agnes E. .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2014, 203 (03) :687-693