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
  • [41] Assessment of screen-recalled abnormalities for digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography screening in the BreastScreen Maroondah trial
    Li, Tong
    Lockie, Darren
    Clemson, Michelle
    Houssami, Nehmat
    JOURNAL OF MEDICAL IMAGING AND RADIATION ONCOLOGY, 2023, 67 (03) : 242 - 251
  • [42] Comparison of standard mammography with digital mammography and digital infrared thermal imaging for breast cancer screening
    Kosus, Nermin
    Kosus, Aydin
    Duran, Muzeyyen
    Simavli, Serap
    Turhan, Nilgun
    JOURNAL OF THE TURKISH-GERMAN GYNECOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, 2010, 11 (03) : 152 - 157
  • [43] Combined screening with mammography and ultrasound in a population-based screening program
    Buchberger, Wolfgang
    Geiger-Gritsch, Sabine
    Knapp, Rudolf
    Gautsch, Kurt
    Oberaigner, Willi
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2018, 101 : 24 - 29
  • [44] Screening Outcomes Following Implementation of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in a General-Population Screening Program
    McCarthy, Anne Marie
    Kontos, Despina
    Synnestvedt, Marie
    Tan, Kay See
    Heitjan, Daniel F.
    Schnall, Mitchell
    Conant, Emily F.
    JNCI-JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 2014, 106 (11):
  • [45] BI-RADS 3 on dense breast screening ultrasound after digital mammography versus digital breast tomosynthesis
    Dibble, Elizabeth H.
    Singer, Tisha M.
    Baird, Grayson L.
    Lourenco, Ana P.
    CLINICAL IMAGING, 2021, 80 : 315 - 321
  • [46] Range of Radiologist Performance in a Population-based Screening Cohort of 1 Million Digital Mammography Examinations
    Salim, Mattie
    Dembrower, Karin
    Eklund, Martin
    Lindholm, Peter
    Strand, Fredrik
    RADIOLOGY, 2020, 297 (01) : 33 - 39
  • [47] Cost-effectiveness of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in Population-based Breast Cancer Screening: A Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis
    Sankatsing, Valerie D. V.
    Juraniec, Karolina
    Grimm, Sabine E.
    Joore, Manuela A.
    Pijnappel, Ruud M.
    de Koning, Harry J.
    van Ravesteyn, Nicolien T.
    RADIOLOGY, 2020, 297 (01) : 40 - 48
  • [48] Breast Cancers Detected during a Decade of Screening with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Comparison with Digital Mammography
    Philpotts, Liane Elizabeth
    Grewal, Jaskirandeep Kaur
    Horvath, Laura Jean
    Giwerc, Michelle Young
    Staib, Lawrence
    Etesami, Maryam
    RADIOLOGY, 2024, 312 (03)
  • [49] The cost-effectiveness of digital breast tomosynthesis in a population breast cancer screening program
    Jing Wang
    Xuan-Anh Phi
    Marcel J. W. Greuter
    Alicja M. Daszczuk
    Talitha L. Feenstra
    Ruud M. Pijnappel
    Karin M. Vermeulen
    Nico Buls
    Nehmat Houssami
    Wenli Lu
    Geertruida H. de Bock
    European Radiology, 2020, 30 : 5437 - 5445
  • [50] Digital breast tomosynthesis in a population based mammographic screening program: Breast compression and early performance measures
    Moshina, Nataliia
    Larsen, Marthe
    Holen, Asne S.
    Waade, Gunvor G.
    Aase, Hildegunn S.
    Hofvind, Solveig
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2021, 139