Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Jul 1;3(7):e2011792.
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.11792.

Screening Performance of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis vs Digital Mammography in Community Practice by Patient Age, Screening Round, and Breast Density

Affiliations

Screening Performance of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis vs Digital Mammography in Community Practice by Patient Age, Screening Round, and Breast Density

Kathryn P Lowry et al. JAMA Netw Open. .

Abstract

Importance: Digital mammography (DM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) are used for routine breast cancer screening. There is minimal evidence on performance outcomes by age, screening round, and breast density in community practice.

Objective: To compare DM vs DBT performance by age, baseline vs subsequent screening round, and breast density category.

Design, setting, and participants: This comparative effectiveness study assessed 1 584 079 screening examinations of women aged 40 to 79 years without prior history of breast cancer, mastectomy, or breast augmentation undergoing screening mammography at 46 participating Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium facilities from January 2010 to April 2018.

Exposures: Age, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System breast density category, screening round, and modality.

Main outcomes and measures: Absolute rates and relative risks (RRs) of screening recall and cancer detection.

Results: Of 1 273 492 DM and 310 587 DBT examinations analyzed, 1 028 891 examinations (65.0%) were of white non-Hispanic women; 399 952 women (25.2%) were younger than 50 years; and 671 136 women (42.4%) had heterogeneously dense or extremely dense breasts. Adjusted differences in DM vs DBT performance were largest on baseline examinations: for example, per 1000 baseline examinations in women ages 50 to 59, recall rates decreased from 241 examinations for DM to 204 examinations for DBT (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73-0.98), and cancer detection rates increased from 5.9 with DM to 8.8 with DBT (RR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.10-2.08). On subsequent examinations, women aged 40 to 79 years with heterogeneously dense breasts had improved recall rates and improved cancer detection with DBT. For example, per 1000 examinations in women aged 50 to 59 years, the number of recall examinations decreased from 102 with DM to 93 with DBT (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.84-0.98), and cancer detection increased from 3.7 with DM to 5.3 with DBT (RR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.23-1.64). Women aged 50 to 79 years with scattered fibroglandular density also had improved recall and cancer detection rates with DBT. Women aged 40 to 49 years with scattered fibroglandular density and women aged 50 to 79 years with almost entirely fatty breasts benefited from improved recall rates without change in cancer detection rates. No improvements in recall or cancer detection rates were observed in women with extremely dense breasts on subsequent examinations for any age group.

Conclusions and relevance: This study found that improvements in recall and cancer detection rates with DBT were greatest on baseline mammograms. On subsequent screening mammograms, the benefits of DBT varied by age and breast density. Women with extremely dense breasts did not benefit from improved recall or cancer detection with DBT on subsequent screening rounds.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Lowry reported receiving grants from GE Healthcare outside the submitted work. Dr Miglioretti reported receiving grants from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and from The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) during the conduct of the study; and receiving personal fees for serving as a member of the Hologic Scientific Advisory Board. Dr Kerlikowske reported receiving grants from NCI and from PCORI during the conduct of the study; and being an unpaid consultant for GRAIL Inc for the STRIVE study. Drs Henderson and Onega reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) during the conduct of the study. Dr Sprague reported receiving grants from NIH, PCORI, and the Lake Champlain Cancer Research Organization during the conduct of the study. Dr J. Lee reported receiving grants from NCI during the conduct of the study; and receiving grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from GE Healthcare outside the submitted work. Dr Tosteson reported receiving grants from NCI and from PCORI during the conduct of the study. Dr C. Lee reported receiving grants from GE Healthcare and the American Cancer Society; receiving textbook royalties from McGraw Hill, Oxford University Press, and Wolters Kluwer; and receiving personal fees from GRAIL Inc and the American College of Radiology outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

Figures

Figure.
Figure.. Absolute Differences in Recall and Total Cancer Detection Rates for Digital Breast Tomosynthesis vs Digital Mammography
Values are expressed as absolute differences in rates for digital breast tomosynthesis relative to digital mammography per 1000 screening examinations. In panel A, B represents baseline examination; S, subsequent examination. In panel B, Breast Imaging and Reporting Data System breast density categories are A, almost entirely fat; B, scattered fibroglandular density; C, heterogeneously dense; and D, extremely dense. Error bars indicate 95% CIs.

Comment in

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Conant EF, Barlow WE, Herschorn SD, et al. ; Population-based Research Optimizing Screening Through Personalized Regimen (PROSPR) Consortium . Association of digital breast tomosynthesis vs digital mammography with cancer detection and recall rates by age and breast density. JAMA Oncol. 2019;5(5):635-642. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.7078 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ciatto S, Houssami N, Bernardi D, et al. . Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14(7):583-589. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70134-7 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Friedewald SM, Rafferty EA, Rose SL, et al. . Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. JAMA. 2014;311(24):2499-2507. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.6095 - DOI - PubMed
    1. McDonald ES, Oustimov A, Weinstein SP, Synnestvedt MB, Schnall M, Conant EF. Effectiveness of digital breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography: outcomes analysis from 3 years of breast cancer screening. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2(6):737-743. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.5536 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Marinovich ML, Hunter KE, Macaskill P, Houssami N. Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis or mammography: a meta-analysis of cancer detection and recall. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2018;110(9):942-949. doi:10.1093/jnci/djy121 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms