Comparing Diagnostic Performance of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Full-Field Digital Mammography in a Hybrid Screening Environment

被引:36
作者
Giess, Catherine S. [1 ]
Pourjabbar, Sarvenaz [1 ,2 ]
Ip, Ivan K. [1 ]
Lacson, Ronilda [1 ]
Alper, Emily [1 ]
Khorasani, Ramin [1 ]
机构
[1] Harvard Med Sch, Brigham & Womens Hosp, Dept Radiol, Ctr Evidence Based Imaging, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA 02115 USA
[2] Yale Univ, Sch Med, Dept Radiol, New Haven, CT 06510 USA
关键词
breast; cancer detection; digital breast tomosynthesis; full-field digital mammography; screening; PROPENSITY SCORE; IMPLEMENTATION; COMBINATION;
D O I
10.2214/AJR.17.17983
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
OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study is to compare the diagnostic performance of screening digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) to that of full-field digital mammography (FFDM) in a mixed DBT and FFDM imaging environment. MATERIALS AND METHODS. This retrospective observational study consisted of all female patients undergoing screening DBT or FFDM at an academic medical center and outpatient imaging facility between October 2012 and May 2015. Patient demographics and personal history of breast cancer were collected from the electronic medical record. A natural language processing algorithm extracted patients' breast density, current or prior imaging findings, and BI-RADS category from their most recent prior imaging examinations. To control for differential selection of FFDM versus DBT, we applied propensity score matching based on patient age, imaging site, and prior imaging findings. An institutional breast cancer registry identified cancer diagnoses. Primary outcomes of recall rate, cancer detection rate, and positive predictive value 1 (PPV1) were compared between matched FFDM and DBT groups. RESULTS. Among 68,794 screening examinations, we matched 16,264 FFDM with 21,074 DBT examinations (total, 37,338 examinations) using nearest neighbor propensity score matching. Recall rates were 10.3% (1683/16,264) for FFDM and 10.7% (2254/21,074) for DBT (p = 0.26). Cancer detection rates (number of cancers/1000 examinations) were 1.8/1000 for FFDM and 3.8/1000 for DBT (p = 0.005). The PPV1 (number of cancers/number of recalls) was 1.8% (26/1478) for FFDM and 3.6% (37/1036) for DBT (p = 0.006). CONCLUSION. FFDM and DBT recall rates were not significantly different in a mixed FFDM and DBT breast imaging practice. However, the PPV1 of recalled cases and the cancer detection rate (the primary screening objective) were significantly higher with DBT compared with FFDM.
引用
收藏
页码:929 / 934
页数:6
相关论文
共 28 条
  • [1] [Anonymous], 2013, ACR BIRADS ATLAS BRE
  • [2] A Tutorial and Case Study in Propensity Score Analysis: An Application to Estimating the Effect of In-Hospital Smoking Cessation Counseling on Mortality
    Austin, Peter C.
    [J]. MULTIVARIATE BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH, 2011, 46 (01) : 119 - 151
  • [3] Comparison of logistic regression versus propensity score when the number of events is low and there are multiple confounders
    Cepeda, MS
    Boston, R
    Farrar, JT
    Strom, BL
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2003, 158 (03) : 280 - 287
  • [4] Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study
    Ciatto, Stefano
    Houssami, Nehmat
    Bernardi, Daniela
    Caumo, Francesca
    Pellegrini, Marco
    Brunelli, Silvia
    Tuttobene, Paola
    Bricolo, Paola
    Fanto, Carmine
    Valentini, Marvi
    Montemezzi, Stefania
    Macaskill, Petra
    [J]. LANCET ONCOLOGY, 2013, 14 (07) : 583 - 589
  • [5] Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography compared to digital mammography alone: a cohort study within the PROSPR consortium
    Conant, Emily F.
    Beaber, Elisabeth F.
    Sprague, Brian L.
    Herschorn, Sally D.
    Weaver, Donald L.
    Onega, Tracy
    Tosteson, Anna N. A.
    McCarthy, Anne Marie
    Poplack, Steven P.
    Haas, Jennifer S.
    Armstrong, Katrina
    Schnall, Mitchell D.
    Barlow, William E.
    [J]. BREAST CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT, 2016, 156 (01) : 109 - 116
  • [6] Clinical Implementation of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis
    Conant, Emily F.
    [J]. RADIOLOGIC CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA, 2014, 52 (03) : 499 - +
  • [7] D'Orsi C.J., 2003, Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) breast imaging atlas
  • [8] Addition of Tomosynthesis to Conventional Digital Mammography: Effect on Image Interpretation Time of Screening Examinations
    Dang, Pragya A.
    Freer, Phoebe E.
    Humphrey, Kathryn L.
    Halpern, Elkan F.
    Rafferty, Elizabeth A.
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 2014, 270 (01) : 49 - 56
  • [9] Early Clinical Experience with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Screening Mammography
    Durand, Melissa A.
    Haas, Brian M.
    Yao, Xiaopan
    Geisel, Jaime L.
    Raghu, Madhavi
    Hooley, Regina J.
    Horvath, Laura J.
    Philpotts, Liane E.
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 2015, 274 (01) : 85 - 92
  • [10] Breast Cancer Screening Using Tomosynthesis in Combination With Digital Mammography
    Friedewald, Sarah M.
    Rafferty, Elizabeth A.
    Rose, Stephen L.
    Durand, Melissa A.
    Plecha, Donna M.
    Greenberg, Julianne S.
    Hayes, Mary K.
    Copit, Debra S.
    Carlson, Kara L.
    Cink, Thomas M.
    Barke, Lora D.
    Greer, Linda N.
    Miller, Dave P.
    Conant, Emily F.
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2014, 311 (24): : 2499 - 2507