Comparison of Tomosynthesis Plus Digital Mammography and Digital Mammography Alone for Breast Cancer Screening

被引:310
|
作者
Haas, Brian M. [1 ]
Kalra, Vivek [1 ]
Geisel, Jaime [1 ]
Raghu, Madhavi [1 ]
Durand, Melissa [1 ]
Philpotts, Liane E. [1 ]
机构
[1] Yale Univ, Sch Med, Dept Diagnost Radiol, New Haven, CT 06520 USA
关键词
PERFORMANCE; WOMEN;
D O I
10.1148/radiol.13130307
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
Purpose: To compare screening recall rates and cancer detection rates of tomosynthesis plus conventional digital mammography to those of conventional digital mammography alone. Materials and Methods: All patients presenting for screening mammography between October 1, 2011, and September 30, 2012, at four clinical sites were reviewed in this HIPAA-compliant retrospective study, for which the institutional review board granted approval and waived the requirement for informed consent. Patients at sites with digital tomosynthesis were offered screening with digital mammography plus tomosynthesis. Patients at sites without tomosynthesis underwent conventional digital mammography. Recall rates were calculated and stratified according to breast density and patient age. Cancer detection rates were calculated and stratified according to the presence of a risk factor for breast cancer. The Fisher exact test was used to compare the two groups. Multivariate logistic regression was used to assess the effect of screening method, breast density, patient age, and cancer risk on the odds of recall from screening. Results: A total of 13 158 patients presented for screening mammography; 6100 received tomosynthesis. The overall recall rate was 8.4% for patients in the tomosynthesis group and 12.0% for those in the conventional mammography group (P < .01). The addition of tomosynthesis reduced recall rates for all breast density and patient age groups, with significant differences (P < .05) found for scattered fibro-glandular, heterogeneously dense, and extremely dense breasts and for patients younger than 40 years, those aged 40-49 years, those aged 50-59 years, and those aged 60-69 years. These findings persisted when multivariate logistic regression was used to control for differences in age, breast density, and elevated risk of breast cancer. The cancer detection rate was 5.7 per 1000 in patients receiving tomosynthesis versus 5.2 per 1000 in patients receiving conventional mammography alone (P = .70). Conclusion: Patients undergoing tomosynthesis plus digital mammography had significantly lower screening recall rates. The greatest reductions were for those younger than 50 years and those with dense breasts. A nonsignificant 9.5% increase in cancer detection was observed in the tomosynthesis group. (C)RSNA, 2013
引用
收藏
页码:694 / 700
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Screening Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Controversies
    Funaro, Kimberly
    Drukteinis, Jennifer
    Falcon, Shannon
    [J]. SOUTHERN MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2017, 110 (10) : 607 - 613
  • [22] Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography compared to digital mammography alone: a cohort study within the PROSPR consortium
    Emily F. Conant
    Elisabeth F. Beaber
    Brian L. Sprague
    Sally D. Herschorn
    Donald L. Weaver
    Tracy Onega
    Anna N. A. Tosteson
    Anne Marie McCarthy
    Steven P. Poplack
    Jennifer S. Haas
    Katrina Armstrong
    Mitchell D. Schnall
    William E. Barlow
    [J]. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, 2016, 156 : 109 - 116
  • [23] 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
  • [24] 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
  • [25] Breast Cancer Detection: Digital Breast Tomosynthesis with Synthesized Mammography versus Digital Mammography
    Ha, Su Min
    Chang, Jung Min
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 2023, 309 (03)
  • [26] Comparison of synthetic and digital mammography with digital breast tomosynthesis or alone for the detection and classification of microcalcifications
    Choi, Ji Soo
    Han, Boo-Kyung
    Ko, Eun Young
    Kim, Ga Ram
    Ko, Eun Sook
    Park, Ko Woon
    [J]. EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2019, 29 (01) : 319 - 329
  • [27] Digital Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis
    Moseley, Tanya W.
    [J]. CLINICAL OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2016, 59 (02): : 362 - 379
  • [28] Breast Cancer Screening Should Tomosynthesis Replace Digital Mammography?
    Pisano, Etta D.
    Yaffe, Martin J.
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2014, 311 (24): : 2488 - 2489
  • [29] Comparison of synthetic and digital mammography with digital breast tomosynthesis or alone for the detection and classification of microcalcifications
    Ji Soo Choi
    Boo-Kyung Han
    Eun Young Ko
    Ga Ram Kim
    Eun Sook Ko
    Ko Woon Park
    [J]. European Radiology, 2019, 29 : 319 - 329
  • [30] Outcomes by Race in Breast Cancer Screening With Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Versus Digital Mammography
    Alsheik, Nila
    Blount, Linda
    Qiong, Qiu
    Talley, Melinda
    Pohlman, Scott
    Troeger, Kathleen
    Abbey, Genevieve
    Mango, Victoria L.
    Pollack, Erica
    Chong, Alice
    Donadio, Greg
    Behling, Michael
    Mortimer, Kathleen
    Conant, Emily
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF RADIOLOGY, 2021, 18 (07) : 906 - 918