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
  • [31] Breast Cancer Screening Using Mammography, Digital Breast Tomosynthesis, and Magnetic Resonance Imaging by Breast Density
    Stout, Natasha K.
    Miglioretti, Diana L.
    Su, Yu-Ru
    Lee, Christoph I.
    Abraham, Linn
    Alagoz, Oguzhan
    de Koning, Harry J.
    Hampton, John M.
    Henderson, Louise
    Lowry, Kathryn P.
    Mandelblatt, Jeanne S.
    Onega, Tracy
    Schechter, Clyde B.
    Sprague, Brian L.
    Stein, Sarah
    Trentham-Dietz, Amy
    van Ravesteyn, Nicolien T.
    Wernli, Karen J.
    Kerlikowske, Karla
    Tosteson, Anna N. A.
    JAMA INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2024, 184 (10) : 1222 - 1231
  • [32] 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
  • [33] Effect of false-positive results on reattendance at breast cancer screening programmes in Spain
    Alamo-Junquera, Dolores
    Murta-Nascimento, Cristiane
    Macia, Francesc
    Bare, Marisa
    Galceran, Jaume
    Ascunce, Nieves
    Zubizarreta, Raquel
    Salas, Dolores
    Roman, Ruben
    Castells, Xavier
    Sala, Maria
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, 2012, 22 (03) : 404 - 408
  • [34] Breast Cancer Screening Using Tomosynthesis and Digital Mammography in Dense and Nondense Breasts
    Rafferty, Elizabeth A.
    Durand, Melissa A.
    Conant, Emily F.
    Copit, Debra Somers
    Friedewald, Sarah M.
    Plecha, Donna M.
    Miller, Dave P.
    JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2016, 315 (16): : 1784 - 1786
  • [35] Effect of age on breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography
    Rafferty, Elizabeth A.
    Rose, Stephen L.
    Miller, Dave P.
    Durand, Melissa A.
    Conant, Emily F.
    Copit, Debra S.
    Friedewald, Sarah M.
    Plecha, Donna M.
    Ott, Ingrid L.
    Hayes, Mary K.
    Carlson, Kara L.
    Cink, Thomas M.
    Barke, Lora D.
    Greer, Linda N.
    Niklason, Loren T.
    BREAST CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT, 2017, 164 (03) : 659 - 666
  • [36] Consequences of a false-positive mammography result: drug consumption before and after screening
    von Euler-Chelpin, My
    Baeksted, Christina
    Vejborg, Ilse
    Lynge, Elsebeth
    ACTA ONCOLOGICA, 2016, 55 (05) : 572 - 576
  • [37] Radiation exposure and screening yield by digital breast tomosynthesis compared to mammography: results of the TOSYMA Trial breast density related
    Sommer, Alexander
    Weigel, Stefanie
    Hense, Hans-Werner
    Gerss, Joachim
    Weyer-Elberich, Veronika
    Kerschke, Laura
    Nekolla, Elke
    Lenzen, Horst
    Heindel, Walter
    EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2025, 35 (01) : 166 - 176
  • [38] False-Negative Rates of Breast Cancer Screening with and without Digital Breast Tomosynthesis
    Durand, Melissa A.
    Friedewald, Sarah M.
    Plecha, Donna M.
    Copit, Debra S.
    Barke, Lora D.
    Rose, Stephen L.
    Hayes, Mary K.
    Greer, Linda N.
    Dabbous, Firas M.
    Conant, Emily F.
    RADIOLOGY, 2021, 298 (02) : 296 - 305
  • [39] Screening Mammography Performance Metrics of 2D Digital Mammography Versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in Women With a Personal History of Breast Cancer
    Chikarmane, Sona A.
    Cochon, Laila R.
    Khorasani, Ramin
    Sahu, Sonia
    Giess, Catherine S.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2021, 217 (03) : 587 - 594
  • [40] Comparing accuracy of tomosynthesis plus digital mammography or synthetic 2D mammography in breast cancer screening: baseline results of the MAITA RCT consortium
    Rossi, Paolo Giorgi
    Mancuso, Pamela
    Pattacini, Pierpaolo
    Campari, Cinzia
    Nitrosi, Andrea
    Iotti, Valentina
    Ponti, Antonio
    Frigerio, Alfonso
    Correale, Loredana
    Riggi, Emilia
    Giordano, Livia
    Segnan, Nereo
    Di Leo, Giovanni
    Magni, Veronica
    Sardanelli, Francesco
    Fornasa, Francesca
    Romanucci, Giovanna
    Montemezzi, Stefania
    Falini, Patrizia
    Auzzi, Noemi
    Zappa, Marco
    Ottone, Marta
    Mantellini, Paola
    Duffy, Stephen W.
    Armaroli, Paola
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2024, 199