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
  • [21] Compliance With Screening Mammography Guidelines After a False-Positive Mammogram
    Hardesty, Lara A.
    Lind, Kimberly E.
    Gutierrez, Eric I.
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF RADIOLOGY, 2016, 13 (09) : 1032 - 1038
  • [22] Double reading of automated breast ultrasound with digital mammography or digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer screening
    Lee, Janie M.
    Partridge, Savannah C.
    Liao, Geraldine J.
    Hippe, Daniel S.
    Kim, Adrienne E.
    Lee, Christoph, I
    Rahbar, Habib
    Scheel, John R.
    Lehman, Constance D.
    CLINICAL IMAGING, 2019, 55 : 119 - 125
  • [23] Impact of breast density on diagnostic accuracy in digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: results from a European screening trial
    Olinder, Jakob
    Johnson, Kristin
    Akesson, Anna
    Fornvik, Daniel
    Zackrisson, Sophia
    BREAST CANCER RESEARCH, 2023, 25 (01)
  • [24] Breast cancer screening in women with and without implants: retrospective study comparing digital mammography to digital mammography combined with digital breast tomosynthesis
    Cohen, Ethan O.
    Perry, Rachel E.
    Tso, Hilda H.
    Phalak, Kanchan A.
    Lesslie, Michele D.
    Gerlach, Karen E.
    Sun, Jia
    Srinivasan, Ashmitha
    Leung, Jessica W. T.
    EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2021, 31 (12) : 9499 - 9510
  • [25] Clinical and radiological features of breast tumors according to history of false-positive results in mammography screening
    Domingo, Laia
    Romero, Anabel
    Blanch, Jordi
    Salas, Dolores
    Sanchez, Mar
    Rodriguez-Arana, Ana
    Ferrer, Joana
    Ibanez, Josefa
    Vega, Alfonso
    Soledad Laso, M.
    Castells, Xavier
    Sala, Maria
    CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2013, 37 (05) : 660 - 665
  • [26] Effect of Mammographic Screening Modality on Breast Density Assessment: Digital Mammography versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis
    Gastounioti, Aimilia
    McCarthy, Anne Marie
    Pantalone, Lauren
    Synnestvedt, Marie
    Kontos, Despina
    Conant, Emily F.
    RADIOLOGY, 2019, 291 (02) : 319 - 326
  • [27] Multicenter Evaluation of Breast Cancer Screening with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in Combination with Synthetic versus Digital Mammography
    Zuckerman, Samantha P.
    Sprague, Brian L.
    Weaver, Donald L.
    Herschorn, Sally D.
    Conant, Emily F.
    RADIOLOGY, 2020, 297 (03) : 545 - 553
  • [28] Cumulative Incidence of False-Positive Results in Repeated, Multimodal Cancer Screening
    Croswell, Jennifer Miller
    Kramer, Barnett S.
    Kreimer, Aimee R.
    Prorok, Phil C.
    Xu, Jian-Lun
    Baker, Stuart G.
    Fagerstrom, Richard
    Riley, Thomas L.
    Clapp, Jonathan D.
    Berg, Christine D.
    Gohagan, John K.
    Andriole, Gerald L.
    Chia, David
    Church, Timothy R.
    Crawford, E. David
    Fouad, Mona N.
    Gelmann, Edward P.
    Lamerato, Lois
    Reding, Douglas J.
    Schoen, Robert E.
    ANNALS OF FAMILY MEDICINE, 2009, 7 (03) : 212 - 222
  • [29] Comparison of False-Positive Versus True-Positive Findings on Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography
    Amir, Tali
    Hogan, Molly P.
    Jacobs, Stefanie
    Sevilimedu, Varadan
    Sung, Janice
    Jochelson, Maxine S.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2022, 218 (05) : 797 - 808
  • [30] Performance of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis, Synthetic Mammography, and Digital Mammography in Breast Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Alabousi, Mostafa
    Wadera, Akshay
    Al-Ghita, Mohammed Kashif
    Al-Ghetaa, Rayeh Kashef
    Salameh, Jean-Paul
    Pozdnyakov, Alex
    Zha, Nanxi
    Samoilov, Lucy
    Sharifabadi, Anahita Dehmoobad
    Sadeghirad, Behnam
    Freitas, Vivianne
    McInnes, Matthew D. F.
    Alabousi, Abdullah
    JNCI-JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 2021, 113 (06): : 680 - 690