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
  • [41] Influence of false-positive mammography results on subsequent screening: do physician recommendations buffer negative effects?
    DeFrank, Jessica T.
    Rimer, Barbara K.
    Bowling, J. Michael
    Earp, Jo Anne
    Breslau, Erica S.
    Brewer, Noel T.
    JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCREENING, 2012, 19 (01) : 35 - 41
  • [42] Effect of radiologist experience on the risk of false-positive results in breast cancer screening programs
    Zubizarreta Alberdi, Raquel
    Fernandez Llanes, Ana B.
    Almazan Ortega, Raquel
    Roman Exposito, Ruban
    Velarde Collado, Jose M.
    Queiro Verdes, Teresa
    Natal Ramos, Carmen
    Ederra Sanz, Maria
    Salas Trejo, Dolores
    Castells Oliveres, Xavier
    EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2011, 21 (10) : 2083 - 2090
  • [43] Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Plus Ultrasound Versus Digital Mammography Plus Ultrasound for Screening Breast Cancer in Women With Dense Breasts
    Ha, Su Min
    Yi, Ann
    Yim, Dahae
    Jang, Myoung-jin
    Kwon, Bo Ra
    Shin, Sung Ui
    Lee, Eun Jae
    Lee, Soo Hyun
    Moon, Woo Kyung
    Chang, Jung Min
    KOREAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2023, 24 (04) : 274 - 283
  • [44] Benefit of adding digital breast tomosynthesis to digital mammography for breast cancer screening focused on cancer characteristics: a meta-analysis
    Yun, Seong Jong
    Ryu, Chang-Woo
    Rhee, Sun Jung
    Ryu, Jung Kyu
    Oh, Ji Young
    BREAST CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT, 2017, 164 (03) : 557 - 569
  • [45] Digital breast tomosynthesis (3D-mammography) for screening women with dense breasts
    Houssami, Nehmat
    EXPERT REVIEW OF MEDICAL DEVICES, 2016, 13 (06) : 515 - 517
  • [46] Breast cancer risk is increased in the years following false-positive breast cancer screening
    Goossens, Mathijs C.
    De Brabander, Isabel
    De Greve, Jacques
    Vaes, Evelien
    Van Ongeval, Chantal
    Van Herck, Koen
    Kellen, Eliane
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER PREVENTION, 2017, 26 (05) : 396 - 403
  • [47] Cumulative Incidence of False-Positive Test Results in Lung Cancer Screening A Randomized Trial
    Croswell, Jennifer M.
    Baker, Stuart G.
    Marcus, Pamela M.
    Clapp, Jonathan D.
    Kramer, Barnett S.
    ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2010, 152 (08) : 505 - U53
  • [48] Re-attendance after false-positive screening mammography: a population-based study in the Netherlands
    Setz-Pels, W.
    Duijm, L. E. M.
    Coebergh, J. W.
    Rutten, M.
    Nederend, J.
    Voogd, A. C.
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2013, 109 (08) : 2044 - 2050
  • [49] Interval Breast Cancer Rates and Histopathologic Tumor Characteristics after False-Positive Findings at Mammography in a Population-based Screening Program
    Hofvind, Solveig
    Sagstad, Silje
    Sebuodegard, Sofie
    Chen, Ying
    Roman, Marta
    Lee, Christoph I.
    RADIOLOGY, 2018, 287 (01) : 58 - 67
  • [50] Assessing Radiologist Performance Using Combined Digital Mammography and Breast Tomosynthesis Compared with Digital Mammography Alone: Results of a Multicenter, Multireader Trial
    Rafferty, Elizabeth A.
    Park, Jeong Mi
    Philpotts, Liane E.
    Poplack, Steven P.
    Sumkin, Jules H.
    Halpern, Elkan F.
    Niklason, Loren T.
    RADIOLOGY, 2013, 266 (01) : 104 - 113