Purpose Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is emerging as the new standard of care for breast cancer screening based on improved cancer detection coupled with reductions in recall compared to screening with digital mammography (DM) alone. However, many prior studies lack follow-up data to assess false negatives examinations. The purpose of this study is to assess if DBT is associated with improved screening outcomes based on follow-up data from tumor registries or pathology. Methods Retrospective analysis of prospective cohort data from three research centers performing DBT screening in the PROSPR consortium from 2011–2014 was performed. Recall and biopsy rates were assessed from 198,881 women age 40–74 years undergoing screening (142,883 DM and 55,998 DBT examinations). Cancer, cancer detection, and false negative rates and positive predictive values were assessed on examinations with one year of follow-up. Logistic regression was used to compare DBT to DM adjusting for research center, age, prior breast imaging, and breast density. Results There was a reduction in recall with DBT compared to DM (8.7% vs. 10.4%, p<0.0001), with adjusted OR=0.68 (95% CI=0.65–0.71). DBT demonstrated a statistically significant increase in cancer detection over DM (5.9 vs. 4.4/1,000 screened, adjusted OR=1.45, 95% CI=1.12–1.88), an improvement in PPV1 (6.4% for DBT vs. 4.1% for DM, adjusted OR=2.02, 95% CI=1.54–2.65), and no significant difference in false negative rates for DBT compared to DM (0.46 vs. 0.60/1,000 screened, p=0.347). Conclusions Our data support implementation of DBT screening based on increased cancer detection, reduced recall, and no difference in false negative screening examinations.
Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is emerging as the standard of care for breast imaging based on improvements in both screening and diagnostic imaging outcomes. The additional information obtained from the tomosynthesis acquisition decreases the confounding effect of overlapping tissue, allowing for improved lesion detection, characterization, and localization. In addition, the quasi three-dimensional information obtained from the reconstructed DBT data set allows a more efficient imaging work-up than imaging with two-dimensional full-field digital mammography alone. Herein, the authors review the benefits of DBT imaging in screening and diagnostic breast imaging.
Background: Limited data exist beyond prevalence rounds of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening.Purpose: To compare DBT outcomes over multiple years and rounds to outcomes of digital mammography (DM) screening. Materials and Methods:Retrospective analysis included 1 year of DM and 5 years of DBT screening (September 2011 to September 2016); 67 350 examinations were performed in 29 310 women. Recall rate (RR) percentage, cancer detection rate (CDR) per 1000 women screened, false-negative rate per 1000 women screened, positive predictive value of recall (PPV1) percentage, positive predictive value of biopsies performed percentage, sensitivity, and specificity were calculated. Cancers diagnosed within 1 year of screening were captured by means of linkage to state cancer registry, and biologic characteristics were grouped by prognostic factors. Performance trends across DBT rounds were compared with those from DM rounds by using logistic regression to account for examinations in the same woman. Analyses were adjusted for age, race, breast density, baseline examination, and reader.Results: There were 56 839 DBT and 10 511 DM examinations. The mean patient age (6 standard deviation) was 56 years 611 for the entire cohort, 55 years 611 for the DBT group, and 57 years 611 for the DM group. RRs were significantly lower for the DBT group (8.0%, 4522 of 56 839; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 7.7, 8.2) than for the DM group (10.4%, 1094 of 10 511; 95% CI: 9.8, 11.0) (P , .001). CDRs were higher with DBT (6.0 per 1000 women screened; 95% CI: 5.4, 6.7 per 1000 women screened; 340 of 56 839) than with DM (5.1 per 1000 women screened; 95% CI: 3.9, 6.6 per 1000 women screened; 54 of 10 511) (P = .25), but this difference was not statistically significant. Both RR and CDR remained improved compared with DM for 5 years of DBT at the population level. False-negative rates were slightly lower for DBT (0.6 per 1000 women screened; 95% CI: 0.4, 0.8 per 1000 women screened; 33 of 56 839) than DM (0.9 per 1000 women screened; 0.4, 1.6 per 1000 women screened; nine of 10 511) overall (P = .30), but the difference was not statistically significant. In adjusted analyses, RR, biopsy recommendation rates, and PPV1 were improved for DBT versus DM (P .001). Compared with DM, a higher proportion of DBT-detected cancers were invasive (70% [238 of 340] vs 68.5% [37 of 54]) and had poor prognoses characteristics (32.6% [76 of 233] vs 25.0% [nine of 36]). Conclusion:Favorable outcomes with digital breast tomosynthesis screening were sustained over multiple years and rounds. Digital breast tomosynthesis screening was associated with detection of a higher proportion of poor-prognosis cancers than was digital mammography.
The prognostic implications of detection mode in local recurrence after lumpectomy and radiation therapy were assessed. Seventy-two women treated with lumpectomy and irradiation for American Joint Committee on Cancer stages I and II invasive breast cancer developed recurrent cancer in the ipsilateral breast, had physical examination and mammography performed at the time of recurrence, and underwent salvage mastectomy. There was a statistically significant association between detection with mammography alone and lower T stage (P = .05), and there was a nonstatistically significant trend toward noninvasive histologic findings. No significant association was noted between detection method and site of recurrent current cancer in the breast, interval to recurrence, or patient age. There were nonstatistically significant trends toward improved relapse-free survival and overall survival for patients with recurrences detected solely with mammography. that postirradiation surveillance mammography is important for the early detection of recurrent cancer. While the trend did not reach statistical significance, detection with mammography alone had a clinically apparent impact on relapse-free and overall survival.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.