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
  • [21] Comparative analysis between synthetic mammography reconstructed from digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography for breast cancer detection and visibility
    Murakami, Ryusuke
    Uchiyama, Nachiko
    Tani, Hitomi
    Yoshida, Tamiko
    Kumita, Shinichiro
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY OPEN, 2020, 7
  • [22] A comparison of the accuracy of film-screen mammography, full-field digital mammography, and digital breast tomosynthesis
    Michell, M. J.
    Iqbal, A.
    Wasan, R. K.
    Evans, D. R.
    Peacock, C.
    Lawinski, C. P.
    Douiri, A.
    Wilson, R.
    Whelehan, P.
    CLINICAL RADIOLOGY, 2012, 67 (10) : 976 - 981
  • [23] Adaptation of a deep learning malignancy model from full-field digital mammography to digital breast tomosynthesis
    Singh, Sadanand
    Matthews, Thomas Paul
    Shah, Meet
    Mombourquette, Brent
    Tsue, Trevor
    Long, Aaron
    Almohsen, Ranya
    Pedemonte, Stefano
    Su, Jason
    MEDICAL IMAGING 2020: COMPUTER-AIDED DIAGNOSIS, 2020, 11314
  • [24] Comparative Analysis of Diagnostic Performance of Automatic Breast Ultrasound, Full-Field Digital Mammography and Contrast-Enhanced Mammography in Relation to Breast Composition
    Pawlak, Marta Ewa
    Rudnicki, Wojciech
    Borkowska, Anna
    Skubisz, Karolina
    Rydzyk, Rafal
    Luczynska, Elzbieta
    BIOMEDICINES, 2023, 11 (12)
  • [25] Diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis for predicting response to neoadjuvant systemic therapy in breast cancer patients: A comparison with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, and full-field digital mammography
    Murakami, Ryusuke
    Tani, Hitomi
    Kumita, Shinichiro
    Uchiyama, Nachiko
    ACTA RADIOLOGICA OPEN, 2021, 10 (12)
  • [26] BI-RADS 3 on dense breast screening ultrasound after digital mammography versus digital breast tomosynthesis
    Dibble, Elizabeth H.
    Singer, Tisha M.
    Baird, Grayson L.
    Lourenco, Ana P.
    CLINICAL IMAGING, 2021, 80 : 315 - 321
  • [27] A prospective study comparing digital breast tomosynthesis with digital mammography in surveillance after breast cancer treatment
    Sia, Joseph
    Moodie, Kate
    Bressel, Mathias
    Lau, Eddie
    Gyorki, David
    Skandarajah, Anita
    Chua, Boon
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2016, 61 : 122 - 127
  • [28] Community-Based Breast Cancer Screening Using Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Versus Digital Mammography: Comparison of Screening Performance and Tumor Characteristics
    Regen-Tuero, Helaina C.
    Ram, Shruthi
    Gass, Jennifer S.
    Lourenco, Ana P.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2022, 218 (02) : 249 - 256
  • [29] Mammography in combination with breast ultrasonography versus mammography for breast cancer screening in women at average risk
    Glechner, Anna
    Wagner, Gernot
    Mitus, Jerzy W.
    Teufer, Birgit
    Klerings, Irma
    Bock, Nina
    Grillich, Ludwig
    Berzaczy, Dominik
    Helbich, Thomas H.
    Gartlehner, Gerald
    COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2023, (03):
  • [30] Frequency and Outcomes of BI-RADS Category 3 Assessments in Patients With a Personal History of Breast Cancer: Full-Field Digital Mammography Versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis
    Offit, Lily R.
    Chikarmane, Sona A.
    Lacson, Ronilda C.
    Giess, Catherine S.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2023, 221 (03) : 313 - 322