Comparison of Abbreviated Breast MRI vs Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Breast Cancer Detection Among Women With Dense Breasts Undergoing Screening

被引:352
作者
Comstock, Christopher E. [1 ]
Gatsonis, Constantine [2 ,3 ]
Newstead, Gillian M. [4 ,5 ]
Snyder, Bradley S. [3 ]
Gareen, Ilana F. [6 ]
Bergin, Jennifer T. [7 ]
Rahbar, Habib [8 ]
Sung, Janice S. [1 ]
Jacobs, Christina [9 ]
Harvey, Jennifer A. [10 ]
Nicholson, Mary H. [11 ]
Ward, Robert C. [12 ]
Holt, Jacqueline [13 ]
Prather, Andrew [14 ]
Miller, Kathy D. [15 ]
Schnall, Mitchell D. [16 ]
Kuhl, Christiane K. [17 ]
机构
[1] Mem Sloan Kettering Canc Ctr, 1275 York Ave, New York, NY 10021 USA
[2] Brown Univ, Sch Publ Hlth, Dept Biostat, Providence, RI 02912 USA
[3] Brown Univ, Sch Publ Hlth, Ctr Stat Sci, Providence, RI 02912 USA
[4] Univ Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637 USA
[5] Univ Rochester, Dept Radiol, Rochester, NY 14627 USA
[6] Brown Univ, Sch Publ Hlth, Dept Epidemiol, Ctr Stat Sci, Providence, RI 02912 USA
[7] ProHlth Care, UW Canc Ctr, Waukesha, WI USA
[8] Fred Hutchinson Canc Res Ctr, 1124 Columbia St, Seattle, WA 98104 USA
[9] West Michigan Canc Ctr, Kalamazoo, MI USA
[10] Univ Virginia, Ctr Canc, Charlottesville, VA 22908 USA
[11] Community Hosp, Munster, IN USA
[12] Rhode Isl Hosp, Providence, RI USA
[13] Delaware Christiana Care NCORP, Newark, DE USA
[14] Gundersen Hlth Syst, La Crosse, WI USA
[15] Indiana Univ, Indianapolis, IN 46204 USA
[16] Univ Penn, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
[17] Rhein Westfal TH Aachen, Univ Hosp, Aachen, Germany
来源
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION | 2020年 / 323卷 / 08期
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
RESONANCE-IMAGING MRI; TUMOR CHARACTERISTICS; MAMMOGRAPHIC DETECTION; BRCA2; MUTATION; RISK; ULTRASOUND; SURVEILLANCE; PERFORMANCE; INTENSITY; INTERVAL;
D O I
10.1001/jama.2020.0572
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Importance Improved screening methods for women with dense breasts are needed because of their increased risk of breast cancer and of failed early diagnosis by screening mammography. Objective To compare the screening performance of abbreviated breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in women with dense breasts. Design, Setting, and Participants Cross-sectional study with longitudinal follow-up at 48 academic, community hospital, and private practice sites in the United States and Germany, conducted between December 2016 and November 2017 among average-risk women aged 40 to 75 years with heterogeneously dense or extremely dense breasts undergoing routine screening. Follow-up ascertainment of cancer diagnoses was complete through September 12, 2019. Exposures All women underwent screening by both DBT and abbreviated breast MRI, performed in randomized order and read independently to avoid interpretation bias. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary end point was the invasive cancer detection rate. Secondary outcomes included sensitivity, specificity, additional imaging recommendation rate, and positive predictive value (PPV) of biopsy, using invasive cancer and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) to define a positive reference standard. All outcomes are reported at the participant level. Pathology of core or surgical biopsy was the reference standard for cancer detection rate and PPV; interval cancers reported until the next annual screen were included in the reference standard for sensitivity and specificity. Results Among 1516 enrolled women, 1444 (median age, 54 [range, 40-75] years) completed both examinations and were included in the analysis. The reference standard was positive for invasive cancer with or without DCIS in 17 women and for DCIS alone in another 6. No interval cancers were observed during follow-up. Abbreviated breast MRI detected all 17 women with invasive cancer and 5 of 6 women with DCIS. Digital breast tomosynthesis detected 7 of 17 women with invasive cancer and 2 of 6 women with DCIS. The invasive cancer detection rate was 11.8 (95% CI, 7.4-18.8) per 1000 women for abbreviated breast MRI vs 4.8 (95% CI, 2.4-10.0) per 1000 women for DBT, a difference of 7 (95% CI, 2.2-11.6) per 1000 women (exact McNemar P = .002). For detection of invasive cancer and DCIS, sensitivity was 95.7% (95% CI, 79.0%-99.2%) with abbreviated breast MRI vs 39.1% (95% CI, 22.2%-59.2%) with DBT (P = .001) and specificity was 86.7% (95% CI, 84.8%-88.4%) vs 97.4% (95% CI, 96.5%-98.1%), respectively (P < .001). The additional imaging recommendation rate was 7.5% (95% CI, 6.2%-9.0%) with abbreviated breast MRI vs 10.1% (95% CI, 8.7%-11.8%) with DBT (P = .02) and the PPV was 19.6% (95% CI, 13.2%-28.2%) vs 31.0% (95% CI, 17.0%-49.7%), respectively (P = .15). Conclusions and Relevance Among women with dense breasts undergoing screening, abbreviated breast MRI, compared with DBT, was associated with a significantly higher rate of invasive breast cancer detection. Further research is needed to better understand the relationship between screening methods and clinical outcome.
引用
收藏
页码:746 / 756
页数:11
相关论文
共 40 条
[1]  
Ali RMKM, 2018, RADIOGRAPHY, V24, P240, DOI 10.1016/j.radi.2018.02.001
[2]  
Amin M.B., 2017, AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, VXVII, P1032, DOI DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-40618-3
[3]   Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer [J].
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 .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2008, 299 (18) :2151-2163
[4]   Detection of Breast Cancer With Addition of Annual Screening Ultrasound or a Single Screening MRI to Mammography in Women With Elevated Breast Cancer Risk [J].
Berg, Wendie A. ;
Zhang, Zheng ;
Lehrer, Daniel ;
Jong, Roberta A. ;
Pisano, Etta D. ;
Barr, Richard G. ;
Boehm-Velez, Marcela ;
Mahoney, Mary C. ;
Evans, W. Phil, III ;
Larsen, Linda H. ;
Morton, Marilyn J. ;
Mendelson, Ellen B. ;
Farria, Dione M. ;
Cormack, Jean B. ;
Marques, Helga S. ;
Adams, Amanda ;
Yeh, Nolin M. ;
Gabrielli, Glenna .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2012, 307 (13) :1394-1404
[5]   Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer [J].
Boyd, Norman F. ;
Guo, Helen ;
Martin, Lisa J. ;
Sun, Limei ;
Stone, Jennifer ;
Fishell, Eve ;
Jong, Roberta A. ;
Hislop, Greg ;
Chiarelli, Anna ;
Minkin, Salomon ;
Yaffe, Martin J. .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2007, 356 (03) :227-236
[6]  
D'Orsi C.J., 2013, ACR BI RADS ATLAS BR, DOI DOI 10.4236/ABCR.2018.71002
[7]   Recommended tests and confidence intervals for paired binomial proportions [J].
Fagerland, Morten W. ;
Lydersen, Stian ;
Laake, Petter .
STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2014, 33 (16) :2850-2875
[8]   INITIAL VERSUS SUBSEQUENT SCREENING MAMMOGRAPHY - COMPARISON OF FINDINGS AND THEIR PROGNOSTIC-SIGNIFICANCE [J].
FRANKEL, SD ;
SICKLES, EA ;
CURPEN, BN ;
SOLLITTO, RA ;
OMINSKY, SH ;
GALVIN, HB .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 1995, 164 (05) :1107-1109
[9]   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
[10]   Risk Factors and Tumor Characteristics of Interval Cancers by Mammographic Density [J].
Holm, Johanna ;
Humphreys, Keith ;
Li, Jingmei ;
Ploner, Alexander ;
Cheddad, Abbas ;
Eriksson, Mikael ;
Tornberg, Sven ;
Hall, Per ;
Czene, Kamila .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2015, 33 (09) :1030-+