Screening outcome for consecutive examinations with digital breast tomosynthesis versus standard digital mammography in a population-based screening program

被引:24
|
作者
Hovda, Tone [1 ]
Brandal, Siri H. B. [2 ]
Sebuadegard, Sofie [3 ]
Holen, Asne S. [3 ]
Bjorndal, Hilde [1 ]
Skaane, Per [2 ]
Hofvind, Solveig [3 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Vestre Viken Hosp, Dept Radiol, Drammen, Norway
[2] Oslo Univ Hosp, Div Radiol & Nucl Med, Oslo, Norway
[3] Canc Registry Norway, PO 5313, N-0304 Oslo, Norway
[4] Oslo Metropolitan Univ, Fac Hlth Sci, Oslo, Norway
关键词
Screening; Breast neoplasm; Digital breast tomosynthesis; Mammography; Digital mammography; RATES; STORM;
D O I
10.1007/s00330-019-06264-y
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Objectives To retrospectively investigate early performance measures of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) versus standard digital mammography (DM) for consecutive screening rounds. Methods We included information about 35,736 women screened in BreastScreen Norway, 2008-2016, with at least two consecutive screening examinations. The pair of two consecutive screening examinations was the unit of analysis, and results from the subsequent examination were the measure of interest. Screening technique changed during the study period, resulting in four study groups: DM after DM, DBT after DM, DM after DBT, and DBT after DBT. We compared selected early performance measures between the study groups. Results Recall for DM after DM was 3.6% and lower for all other study groups (p < 0.001). The rate of screen-detected breast cancer was 4.6/1000 for DM after DM; for DBT after DM and DBT after DBT, it was 9.9/1000 and 8.3/1000, respectively (p < 0.001 relative to DM after DM), and for DM after DBT 4.3/1000. The rate of tubular carcinoma was higher for DBT after DBT or after DM compared with DM after DM (p < 0.01). The rate of histologic grade 1 tumors was higher for DBT after DM compared with DM after DM (p < 0.001). We did not observe any statistical difference in the interval cancer rates. Conclusions Lower recall and higher cancer detection rates for screening with DBT were sustainable over two consecutive screening rounds. Positive predictive values were higher for DBT than DM. There were no differences in the interval cancer rates between the study groups. Key Points There is limited knowledge about early performance measures for screening with digital breast tomosynthesis beyond one screening round. A decline in recall rate and an incline in the rate of screen-detected breast cancer were observed for women screened with DBT compared with DM, irrespective of prior screening technique. The interval breast cancer rate did not differ statistically for women screened with DBT versus DM. Tumor characteristics tended to be prognostic favorable for DBT compared with DM with no differences in rates of more advanced cancers. The clinical significance of increased cancer detection and the potential for future mortality reduction remain unknown.
引用
收藏
页码:6991 / 6999
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Digital breast tomosynthesis: Initial experience in 98 women with abnormal digital screening mammography
    Poplack, Steven P.
    Tosteson, Tor D.
    Kogel, Christine A.
    Nagy, Helene M.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2007, 189 (03) : 616 - 623
  • [32] Comparison of Outcomes for One-View Asymmetries Recalled From Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Versus Full-Field Digital Mammography Screening Examinations
    Gong, Anna J.
    Nguyen, Derek L.
    Lee, Emerson E.
    Mullen, Lisa A.
    Myers, Kelly S.
    Oluyemi, Eniola
    Ambinder, Emily B.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2022, 219 (05) : 724 - 733
  • [33] Digital breast tomosynthesis in breast cancer screening: an ethical perspective
    Rosenqvist, Simon
    Brannmark, Johan
    Dustler, Magnus
    INSIGHTS INTO IMAGING, 2024, 15 (01):
  • [34] Five Consecutive Years of Screening with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Outcomes by Screening Year and Round
    Conant, Emily F.
    Zuckerman, Samantha P.
    Mcdonald, Elizabeth S.
    Weinstein, Susan P.
    Korhonen, Katrina E.
    Birnbaum, Julia A.
    Tobey, Jennifer D.
    Schnall, Mitchell D.
    Hubbard, Rebecca A.
    RADIOLOGY, 2020, 295 (02) : 285 - 293
  • [35] Synthesized Mammography: The New Standard of Care When Screening for Breast Cancer with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis?
    Ambinder, Emily B.
    Harvey, Susan C.
    Panigrahi, Babita
    Li, Ximin
    Woods, Ryan W.
    ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY, 2018, 25 (08) : 973 - 976
  • [36] Breast cancer screening in women with and without implants: retrospective study comparing digital mammography to digital mammography combined with digital breast tomosynthesis
    Ethan O. Cohen
    Rachel E. Perry
    Hilda H. Tso
    Kanchan A. Phalak
    Michele D. Lesslie
    Karen E. Gerlach
    Jia Sun
    Ashmitha Srinivasan
    Jessica W. T. Leung
    European Radiology, 2021, 31 : 9499 - 9510
  • [37] 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
  • [38] Breast cancer screening using digital breast tomosynthesis compared to digital mammography alone for Japanese women
    Kanako Ban
    Hiroko Tsunoda
    Seiko Togashi
    Yuko Kawaguchi
    Takanobu Sato
    Yoko Takahashi
    Yoshitaka Nagatsuka
    Breast Cancer, 2021, 28 : 459 - 464
  • [39] Screening for Dense Breasts: Digital Breast Tomosynthesis
    Destounis, Stamatia V.
    Morgan, Renee
    Arieno, Andrea
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2015, 204 (02) : 261 - 264
  • [40] Breast cancer screening using digital breast tomosynthesis compared to digital mammography alone for Japanese women
    Ban, Kanako
    Tsunoda, Hiroko
    Togashi, Seiko
    Kawaguchi, Yuko
    Sato, Takanobu
    Takahashi, Yoko
    Nagatsuka, Yoshitaka
    BREAST CANCER, 2021, 28 (02) : 459 - 464