Screening outcomes following implementation of digital breast tomosynthesis in a general-population screening program
- PMID: 25313245
- PMCID: PMC4271033
- DOI: 10.1093/jnci/dju316
Screening outcomes following implementation of digital breast tomosynthesis in a general-population screening program
Abstract
Background: Early data on breast cancer screening utilizing digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) combined with digital mammography (DM) have shown improvements in false-positive and false-negative screening rates compared with DM alone. However, these trials were performed at sites where conventional mammographic screening was concurrently performed, possibly leading to selection biases or with complex, multireader algorithms not reflecting general clinical practice. Our study reports the impact on screening outcomes for DBT screening implemented in an entire clinic population.
Methods: Recall rates, cancer detection, and positive predictive values of screening were compared for 15571 women screened with DBT and 10728 screened with DM alone prior to DBT implementation at a single breast imaging center. Generalized linear mixed-effects models were used to estimate the odds ratio (OR) for recall rate adjusted for age, race, presence of prior mammograms, breast density and reader. All statistical tests were two-sided.
Results: DBT screening showed a statistically significant reduction in recalls compared to DM alone. For the entire population, there were 16 fewer recalls (8.8% vs 10.4%, P <.001, adjusted OR = 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.74 to 0.88, P < .001) and 0.9 additional cancers detected per 1000 screened with DBT compared to DM alone. There was a statistically significant increase in PPV1 (6.2% vs 4.4%, P = .047). In women younger than age 50 years screened with DBT, there were 17 fewer recalls (12.3% vs 14.0%, P = .02) and 3.6 additional cancer detected per 1000 screened (5.7 vs 2.2 per 1000, P = .02).
Conclusions: Our data support the clinical implementation of DBT in breast cancer screening; however, larger prospective trials are needed to validate our findings in specific patient subgroups.
© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.
Similar articles
-
Five Consecutive Years of Screening with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Outcomes by Screening Year and Round.Radiology. 2020 May;295(2):285-293. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2020191751. Epub 2020 Mar 10. Radiology. 2020. PMID: 32154771 Free PMC article.
-
Digital Breast Tomosynthesis with Hologic 3D Mammography Selenia Dimensions System for Use in Breast Cancer Screening: A Single Technology Assessment [Internet].Oslo, Norway: Knowledge Centre for the Health Services at The Norwegian Institute of Public Health (NIPH); 2017 Sep 4. Report from the Norwegian Institute of Public Health No. 2017-08. Oslo, Norway: Knowledge Centre for the Health Services at The Norwegian Institute of Public Health (NIPH); 2017 Sep 4. Report from the Norwegian Institute of Public Health No. 2017-08. PMID: 29553669 Free Books & Documents. Review.
-
Effectiveness of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Compared With Digital Mammography: Outcomes Analysis From 3 Years of Breast Cancer Screening.JAMA Oncol. 2016 Jun 1;2(6):737-43. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.5536. JAMA Oncol. 2016. PMID: 26893205
-
Digital Mammography versus Digital Mammography Plus Tomosynthesis for Breast Cancer Screening: The Reggio Emilia Tomosynthesis Randomized Trial.Radiology. 2018 Aug;288(2):375-385. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2018172119. Epub 2018 Jun 5. Radiology. 2018. PMID: 29869961 Clinical Trial.
-
An individual participant data meta-analysis of breast cancer detection and recall rates for digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography population screening.Clin Breast Cancer. 2022 Jul;22(5):e647-e654. doi: 10.1016/j.clbc.2022.02.005. Epub 2022 Feb 6. Clin Breast Cancer. 2022. PMID: 35246389 Review.
Cited by
-
Diagnostic Efficacy across Dense and Non-Dense Breasts during Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Ultrasound Assessment for Recalled Women.Diagnostics (Basel). 2022 Jun 16;12(6):1477. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics12061477. Diagnostics (Basel). 2022. PMID: 35741287 Free PMC article.
-
Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Complements Two-Dimensional Synthetic Mammography for Secondary Examination of Breast Cancer.J Belg Soc Radiol. 2021 Nov 5;105(1):63. doi: 10.5334/jbsr.2457. eCollection 2021. J Belg Soc Radiol. 2021. PMID: 34786534 Free PMC article.
-
Deep Learning-Based Artificial Intelligence for Mammography.Korean J Radiol. 2021 Aug;22(8):1225-1239. doi: 10.3348/kjr.2020.1210. Epub 2021 May 4. Korean J Radiol. 2021. PMID: 33987993 Free PMC article. Review.
-
The cost-effectiveness of adding tomosynthesis to mammography-based breast cancer screening: an economic analysis.CMAJ Open. 2021 Apr 22;9(2):E443-E450. doi: 10.9778/cmajo.20200154. Print 2021 Apr-Jun. CMAJ Open. 2021. PMID: 33888549 Free PMC article.
-
Diabetes, Obesity, and Inflammation: Impact on Clinical and Radiographic Features of Breast Cancer.Int J Mol Sci. 2021 Mar 9;22(5):2757. doi: 10.3390/ijms22052757. Int J Mol Sci. 2021. PMID: 33803201 Free PMC article. Review.
References
-
- U.S. Preventative Services Task Force. Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(10):716–726, W236. - PubMed
-
- Niklason LT, Christian BT, Niklason LE, et al. Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging. Radiology. 1997;205(2):399–406. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
