Comparison of Tomosynthesis Plus Digital Mammography and Digital Mammography Alone for Breast Cancer Screening

被引:315
作者
Haas, Brian M. [1 ]
Kalra, Vivek [1 ]
Geisel, Jaime [1 ]
Raghu, Madhavi [1 ]
Durand, Melissa [1 ]
Philpotts, Liane E. [1 ]
机构
[1] Yale Univ, Sch Med, Dept Diagnost Radiol, New Haven, CT 06520 USA
关键词
PERFORMANCE; WOMEN;
D O I
10.1148/radiol.13130307
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
Purpose: To compare screening recall rates and cancer detection rates of tomosynthesis plus conventional digital mammography to those of conventional digital mammography alone. Materials and Methods: All patients presenting for screening mammography between October 1, 2011, and September 30, 2012, at four clinical sites were reviewed in this HIPAA-compliant retrospective study, for which the institutional review board granted approval and waived the requirement for informed consent. Patients at sites with digital tomosynthesis were offered screening with digital mammography plus tomosynthesis. Patients at sites without tomosynthesis underwent conventional digital mammography. Recall rates were calculated and stratified according to breast density and patient age. Cancer detection rates were calculated and stratified according to the presence of a risk factor for breast cancer. The Fisher exact test was used to compare the two groups. Multivariate logistic regression was used to assess the effect of screening method, breast density, patient age, and cancer risk on the odds of recall from screening. Results: A total of 13 158 patients presented for screening mammography; 6100 received tomosynthesis. The overall recall rate was 8.4% for patients in the tomosynthesis group and 12.0% for those in the conventional mammography group (P < .01). The addition of tomosynthesis reduced recall rates for all breast density and patient age groups, with significant differences (P < .05) found for scattered fibro-glandular, heterogeneously dense, and extremely dense breasts and for patients younger than 40 years, those aged 40-49 years, those aged 50-59 years, and those aged 60-69 years. These findings persisted when multivariate logistic regression was used to control for differences in age, breast density, and elevated risk of breast cancer. The cancer detection rate was 5.7 per 1000 in patients receiving tomosynthesis versus 5.2 per 1000 in patients receiving conventional mammography alone (P = .70). Conclusion: Patients undergoing tomosynthesis plus digital mammography had significantly lower screening recall rates. The greatest reductions were for those younger than 50 years and those with dense breasts. A nonsignificant 9.5% increase in cancer detection was observed in the tomosynthesis group. (C)RSNA, 2013
引用
收藏
页码:694 / 700
页数:7
相关论文
共 18 条
  • [1] Breast Tomosynthesis: State-of-the-Art and Review of the Literature
    Baker, Jay A.
    Lo, Joseph Y.
    [J]. ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY, 2011, 18 (10) : 1298 - 1310
  • [2] Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer
    Berg, Wendie A.
    Blume, Jeffrey D.
    Cormack, Jean B.
    Mendelson, Ellen B.
    Lehrer, Daniel
    Bohm-Velez, Marcela
    Pisano, Etta D.
    Jong, Roberta A.
    Evans, W. Phil
    Morton, Marilyn J.
    Mahoney, Mary C.
    Larsen, Linda Hovanessian
    Barr, Richard G.
    Farria, Dione M.
    Marques, Helga S.
    Boparai, Karan
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2008, 299 (18): : 2151 - 2163
  • [3] Systematic review: The long-term effects of false-positive mammograms
    Brewer, Noel T.
    Salz, Talya
    Lillie, Sarah E.
    [J]. ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2007, 146 (07) : 502 - 510
  • [4] Influence of false-positive mammography results on subsequent screening: do physician recommendations buffer negative effects?
    DeFrank, Jessica T.
    Rimer, Barbara K.
    Bowling, J. Michael
    Earp, Jo Anne
    Breslau, Erica S.
    Brewer, Noel T.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCREENING, 2012, 19 (01) : 35 - 41
  • [5] A model of the influence of false-positive mammography screening results on subsequent screening
    DeFrank, Jessica T.
    Brewer, Noel
    [J]. HEALTH PSYCHOLOGY REVIEW, 2010, 4 (02) : 112 - 127
  • [6] REPORT OF THE INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP ON SCREENING FOR BREAST-CANCER
    FLETCHER, SW
    BLACK, W
    HARRIS, R
    RIMER, BK
    SHAPIRO, S
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 1993, 85 (20) : 1644 - 1656
  • [7] Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Observer Performance Study
    Gur, David
    Abrams, Gordon S.
    Chough, Denise M.
    Ganott, Marie A.
    Hakim, Christiane M.
    Perrin, Ronald L.
    Rathfon, Grace Y.
    Sumkin, Jules H.
    Zuley, Margarita L.
    Bandos, Andriy I.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2009, 193 (02) : 586 - 591
  • [8] Radiation Doses and Cancer Risks from Breast Imaging Studies
    Hendrick, R. Edward
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 2010, 257 (01) : 246 - 253
  • [9] Comparison of full-field digital mammography with screen-film mammography for cancer detection: Results of 4,945 paired examinations
    Lewin, JM
    Hendrick, RE
    D'Orsi, CJ
    Isaacs, PK
    Moss, LJ
    Karellas, A
    Sisney, GA
    Kuni, CC
    Cutter, GR
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 2001, 218 (03) : 873 - 880
  • [10] Nelson H.D., 2009, Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med, V151, pW237