Performance of Screening Breast MRI After Negative Full-Field Digital Mammography Versus After Negative Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in Women at Higher Than Average Risk for Breast Cancer

被引:12
|
作者
Roarkl, Ashley A. [1 ]
Dang, Pragya A. [2 ]
Niell, Bethany L. [3 ]
Halpern, Elkan F. [4 ]
Lehman, Constance D. [5 ]
机构
[1] Baylor Coll Med, Dept Radiol, Houston, TX 77030 USA
[2] Brigham & Womens Hosp, Dept Radiol, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA 02115 USA
[3] H Lee Moffitt Canc Ctr & Res Inst, Dept Radiol, Tampa, FL USA
[4] Massachusetts Gen Hosp, Inst Technol Assessment, Boston, MA 02114 USA
[5] Massachusetts Gen Hosp, Dept Radiol, Boston, MA USA
关键词
breast cancer; breast MRI; mammography; tomosynthesis; PROSPECTIVE MULTICENTER COHORT; HIGH FAMILIAL RISK; MUTATION CARRIERS; SURVEILLANCE; POPULATION; ULTRASOUND; RECOMMENDATIONS; GENE;
D O I
10.2214/AJR.18.19916
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 compare the supplemental cancer yield and performance of breast MRI in women at higher-than-average risk for breast cancer after negative 2D full-field digital mammography (FFDM) or negative digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). MATERIALS AND METHODS. Retrospective review identified 4418 screening breast MRI examinations: 2291 were performed from January 2010 through January 2012 of patients with a negative FFDM examination in the 12 months before MRI (FFDM group), and 2127 were performed from January 2013 through January 2015 of patients with a negative DBT examination in the 12 months before MRI (DBT group). Screening indications included genetic predisposition, personal history of breast cancer or high-risk lesion, prior chest irradiation, family history, or other risk factors conferring a lifetime risk of greater than 20%. Supplemental cancer detection rate (CDR), abnormal interpretation rate (AIR), and positive predictive values (PPVs) were estimated with 95% exact CIs. Logistic regression analysis, adjusting for differences in patient demographics, was used to compare metrics. RESULTS. There was no significant difference in the CDR of MRI in the FFDM group versus the DBT group (11 vs 16 cancers per 1000 examinations, respectively; odds ratio, 1.4; 95% CI, 0.4-1.2; p = 0.23). The AIR, PPV1, PPV2, and PPV3 were 7.4%, 15%, 23%, and 28% for the FFDM group and 7.3%, 22%, 33%, and 35% for the DBT group, with no statistical differences. Of the cancers detected in both groups, the majority were invasive, less than 1 cm, and node-negative. CONCLUSION. In women at higher-than-average risk of breast cancer screened with DBT, the supplemental CDR of MRI is similar to that of MRI after FFDM screening, with most cancers being invasive, subcentimeter, and node-negative.
引用
收藏
页码:271 / 278
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Digital Breast Tomosynthesis versus MRI as an Adjunct to Full-Field Digital Mammography for Preoperative Evaluation of Breast Cancer according to Mammographic Density
    Kim, Haejung
    Yang, So Yeon
    Ahn, Joong Hyun
    Ko, Eun Young
    Ko, Eun Sook
    Han, Boo-Kyung
    Choi, Ji Soo
    KOREAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2022, 23 (11) : 1031 - 1043
  • [2] Addition of Screening Breast US to Digital Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Breast Cancer Screening in Women at Average Risk
    Yi, Ann
    Jang, Myoung-jin
    Yim, Dahae
    Kwon, Bo Ra
    Shin, Sung Ui
    Chang, Jung Min
    RADIOLOGY, 2021, 298 (03) : 568 - 575
  • [3] Abbreviated Screening Breast MRI in Women at Higher-than-Average Risk for Breast Cancer with Prior Normal Full Protocol MRI
    Plaza, Michael J.
    Perea, Elizabeth
    Sanchez-Gonzalez, Marcos A.
    JOURNAL OF BREAST IMAGING, 2020, 2 (04) : 343 - 351
  • [4] Comparing Tumor Characteristics and Rates of Breast Cancers Detected by Screening Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Full-Field Digital Mammography
    Dang, Pragya A.
    Wang, Aijia
    Senapati, Gunjan M.
    Ip, Ivan K.
    Lacson, Ronilda
    Khorasani, Ramin
    Giess, Catherine S.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2020, 214 (03) : 701 - 706
  • [5] Dense Breast Ultrasound Screening After Digital Mammography Versus After Digital Breast Tomosynthesis
    Dibble, Elizabeth H.
    Singer, Tisha M.
    Jimoh, Nneka
    Baird, Grayson L.
    Lourenco, Ana P.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2019, 213 (06) : 1397 - 1402
  • [6] Performance of full-field digital mammography versus digital breast
    Wang, Mengru
    Zhuang, Shan
    Sheng, Liuli
    Zhao, Yu Nian
    Shen, Wenrong
    PRECISION MEDICAL SCIENCES, 2022, 11 (02): : 56 - 61
  • [7] Comparison of screening full-field digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis technical recalls
    Salkowski, Lonie R.
    Elezaby, Mai
    Fowler, Amy M.
    Burnside, Elizabeth
    Woods, Ryan W.
    Strigel, Roberta M.
    14TH INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP ON BREAST IMAGING (IWBI 2018), 2018, 10718
  • [8] Comparison of screening full-field digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis technical recalls
    Salkowski, Lonie R.
    Elezaby, Mai
    Fowler, Amy M.
    Burnside, Elizabeth
    Woods, Ryan W.
    Strigel, Roberta M.
    JOURNAL OF MEDICAL IMAGING, 2019, 6 (03)
  • [9] Comparison of full-field digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis in ultrasonography-detected breast cancers
    Nam, Kyung Jin
    Han, Boo-Kyung
    Ko, Eun Sook
    Choi, Ji Soo
    Ko, Eun Young
    Jeong, Dong Wook
    Choo, Ki Seok
    BREAST, 2015, 24 (05) : 649 - 655
  • [10] A comparison between digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography for the detection of breast cancers
    Choi, Woo Jung
    Kim, Hak Hee
    Lee, Sun Young
    Chae, Eun Young
    Shin, Hee Jung
    Cha, Joo Hee
    Son, Byung Ho
    Ahn, Sei Hyun
    Choi, Young-Wook
    BREAST CANCER, 2016, 23 (06) : 886 - 892