Cumulative Probability of False-Positive Results After 10 Years of Screening With Digital Breast Tomosynthesis vs Digital Mammography

被引:35
|
作者
Ho, Thao-Quyen H. [1 ,2 ]
Bissell, Michael C. S. [1 ]
Kerlikowske, Karla [3 ,4 ,5 ]
Hubbard, Rebecca A. [6 ]
Sprague, Brian L. [7 ,8 ]
Lee, Christoph, I [9 ,10 ,11 ]
Tice, Jeffrey A. [12 ]
Tosteson, Anna N. A. [13 ,14 ,15 ]
Miglioretti, Diana L. [1 ,16 ]
机构
[1] Univ Calif Davis, Sch Med, Dept Publ Hlth Sci, Div Biostat, Davis, CA 95616 USA
[2] Univ Med Ctr, Dept Training & Sci Res, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
[3] Univ Calif San Francisco, Dept Vet Affairs, Gen Internal Med Sect, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA
[4] Univ Calif San Francisco, Dept Med, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA
[5] Univ Calif San Francisco, Dept Epidemiol & Biostat, San Francisco, CA USA
[6] Univ Penn, Perelman Sch Med, Dept Biostat Epidemiol & Informat, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
[7] Univ Vermont, Larner Coll Med, Off Hlth Promot Res, Dept Surg, Burlington, VT USA
[8] Univ Vermont, Canc Ctr, Burlington, VT USA
[9] Univ Washington, Sch Med, Dept Radiol, Seattle, WA 98195 USA
[10] Univ Washington, Sch Publ Hlth, Dept Hlth Syst & Populat Hlth, Seattle, WA 98195 USA
[11] Hutchinson Inst Canc Outcomes Res, Seattle, WA USA
[12] Univ Calif San Francisco, Dept Med, Div Gen Internal Med, San Francisco, CA USA
[13] Dartmouth Coll, Dartmouth Inst Hlth Policy & Clin Practice, 1 Med Ctr Dr, Lebanon, NH 03756 USA
[14] Geisel Sch Med Dartmouth, Dept Med, Lebanon, NH USA
[15] Norris Cotton Canc Ctr, Dept Oncol, Lebanon, NH USA
[16] Kaiser Permanente Washington, Hlth Res Inst, Seattle, WA USA
基金
美国医疗保健研究与质量局;
关键词
INTERVAL; HARMS; RISK; RECOMMENDATION; FREQUENCY; OUTCOMES; UPDATE; IMPACT; RECALL; AGE;
D O I
10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.2440
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
IMPORTANCE Breast cancer screening with digital breast tomosynthesis may decrease false-positive results compared with digital mammography. OBJECTIVE To estimate the probability of receiving at least 1 false-positive result after 10 years of screening with digital breast tomosynthesis vs digital mammography in the US. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS An observational comparative effectiveness study with data collected prospectively for screening examinations was performed between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2018, at 126 radiology facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Analysis included 903 495 individuals aged 40 to 79 years. Data analysis was conducted from February 9 to September 7, 2021. EXPOSURES Screening modality, screening interval, age, and Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System breast density. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Cumulative risk of at least 1 false-positive recall for further imaging, short-interval follow-up recommendation, and biopsy recommendation after 10 years of annual or biennial screening with digital breast tomosynthesis vs digital mammography, accounting for competing risks of breast cancer diagnosis and death. RESULTS In this study of 903 495 women, 2 969 055 nonbaseline screening examinations were performed with interpretation by 699 radiologists. Mean (SD) age of the women at the time of the screening examinations was 57.6 (9.9) years, and 58% of the examinations were in individuals younger than 60 years and 46% were performed in women with dense breasts. A total of 15% of examinations used tomosynthesis. For annual screening, the 10-year cumulative probability of at least 1 false-positive result was significantly lower with tomosynthesis vs digital mammography for all outcomes: 49.6% vs 56.3% (difference, -6.7; 95% CI, -7.4 to -6.1) for recall, 16.6% vs 17.8% (difference, -1.1; 95% CI, -1.7 to -0.6) for short-interval follow-up recommendation, and 11.2% vs 11.7% (difference, -0.5; 95% CI, -1.0 to -0.1) for biopsy recommendation. For biennial screening, the cumulative probability of a false-positive recall was significantly lower for tomosynthesis vs digital mammography (35.7% vs 38.1%; difference, -2.4; 95% CI, -3.4 to -1.5), but cumulative probabilities did not differ significantly by modality for short-interval follow-up recommendation (10.3% vs 10.5%; difference, -0.1; 95% CI, -0.7 to 0.5) or biopsy recommendation (6.6% vs 6.7%; difference, -0.1; 95% CI, -0.5 to 0.4). Decreases in cumulative probabilities of false-positive results with tomosynthesis vs digital mammography were largest for annual screening in women with nondense breasts (differences for recall, -6.5 to -12.8; short-interval follow-up, 0.1 to -5.2; and biopsy recommendation, -0.5 to -3.1). Regardless of modality, cumulative probabilities of false-positive results were substantially lower for biennial vs annual screening (overall recall, 35.7 to 38.1 vs 49.6 to 56.3; short-interval follow-up, 10.3 to 10.5 vs 16.6 to 17.8; and biopsy recommendation, 6.6 to 6.7 vs 11.2 to 11.7); older vs younger age groups (eg, among annual screening in women ages 70-79 vs 40-49, recall, 39.8 to 47.0 vs 60.8 to 68.0; short-interval follow-up, 13.3 to 14.2 vs 20.7 to 20.9; and biopsy recommendation, 9.1 to 9.3 vs 13.2 to 13.4); and women with entirely fatty vs extremely dense breasts (eg, among annual screening in women aged 50-59 years, recall, 29.1 to 36.3 vs 58.8 to 60.4; short-interval follow-up, 8.9 to 11.6 vs 19.5 to 19.8; and biopsy recommendation, 4.9 to 8.0 vs 15.1 to 15.3). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this comparative effectiveness study, 10-year cumulative probabilities of false-positive results were lower on digital breast tomosynthesis vs digital mammography. Biennial screening interval, older age, and nondense breasts were associated with larger reductions in false-positive probabilities than screening modality.
引用
收藏
页数:15
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Cumulative Probability of False-Positive Recall or Biopsy Recommendation After 10 Years of Screening Mammography A Cohort Study
    Hubbard, Rebecca A.
    Kerlikowske, Karla
    Flowers, Chris I.
    Yankaskas, Bonnie C.
    Zhu, Weiwei
    Miglioretti, Diana L.
    ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2011, 155 (08) : 481 - U46
  • [2] Assessment of Radiologist Performance in Breast Cancer Screening Using Digital Breast Tomosynthesis vs Digital Mammography
    Sprague, Brian L.
    Coley, R. Yates
    Kerlikowske, Karla
    Rauscher, Garth H.
    Henderson, Louise M.
    Onega, Tracy
    Lee, Christoph, I
    Herschorn, Sally D.
    Tosteson, Anna N. A.
    Miglioretti, Diana L.
    JAMA NETWORK OPEN, 2020, 3 (03) : E201759
  • [3] The Burden of False-Positive Results in Analog and Digital Screening Mammography: Experience of the Nova Scotia Breast Screening Program
    Payne, Jennifer I.
    Martin, Tetyana
    Caines, Judy S.
    Duggan, Ryan
    CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF RADIOLOGISTS JOURNAL-JOURNAL DE L ASSOCIATION CANADIENNE DES RADIOLOGISTES, 2014, 65 (04): : 315 - 320
  • [4] Risk of Breast Cancer After False-Positive Test Results in Screening Mammography
    von Euler-Chelpin, My
    Risor, Louise Madeleine
    Thorsted, Brian Larsen
    Vejborg, Ilse
    JNCI-JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 2012, 104 (09): : 682 - 689
  • [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] Comparison of cumulative false-positive risk of screening mammography in the United States and Denmark
    Jacobsen, Katja Kemp
    Abraham, Linn
    Buist, Diana S. M.
    Hubbard, Rebecca A.
    O'Meara, Ellen S.
    Sprague, Brian L.
    Kerlikowske, Karla
    Vejborg, Ilse
    Von Euler-Chelpin, My
    Njor, Sisse Helle
    CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2015, 39 (04) : 656 - 663
  • [7] Digital Mammography versus Digital Mammography Plus Tomosynthesis in Breast Cancer Screening: The Oslo Tomosynthesis Screening Trial
    Skaane, Per
    Bandos, Andriy L.
    Niklason, Loren T.
    Sebuodegard, Sofie
    Osteras, Bjorn H.
    Gullien, Randi
    Gur, David
    Hofvind, Solveig
    RADIOLOGY, 2019, 291 (01) : 22 - 29
  • [8] Screening Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Controversies
    Funaro, Kimberly
    Drukteinis, Jennifer
    Falcon, Shannon
    SOUTHERN MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2017, 110 (10) : 607 - 613
  • [9] Impact of intermediate mammography assessment on the likelihood of false-positive results in breast cancer screening programmes
    Ascunce, Nieves
    Ederra, Maria
    Delfrade, Josu
    Baroja, Araceli
    Erdozain, Nieves
    Zubizarreta, Raquel
    Salas, Dolores
    Castells, Xavier
    EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2012, 22 (02) : 331 - 340
  • [10] Association Between False-Positive Results and Return to Screening Mammography in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium Cohort
    Miglioretti, Diana L.
    Abraham, Linn
    Sprague, Brian L.
    Lee, Christoph I.
    Bissell, Michael C. S.
    Ho, Thao-Quyen H.
    Bowles, Erin J. A.
    Henderson, Louise M.
    Hubbard, Rebecca A.
    Tosteson, Anna N. A.
    Kerlikowske, Karla
    ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2024, 177 (10) : 1297 - 1307