Screening Mammography Performance Metrics of 2D Digital Mammography Versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in Women With a Personal History of Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND. Patients with a history of breast cancer are at higher risk of subsequent breast cancers and need close clinical and imaging follow-up. Limited data are available on screening of these patients with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) versus full-field digital mammography (FFDM). OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the screening mammography performance of DBT compared with FFDM among patients with a history of breast cancer undergoing imaging at a large academic oncology center. METHODS. This retrospective study included consecutively registered patients with a personal history of breast cancer treated with mastectomy or lumpectomy who underwent screening FFDM from October 2014 through September 2016 (5706 examinations of 4091 patients) or screening DBT from February 2017 through December 2018 (4440 examinations of 3647 patients). An institutional mammographic database was queried to obtain imaging type, breast density, history of mastectomy or lumpectomy, and BI-RADS category. An institutional breast cancer registry identified cancer diagnoses. Screening performance metrics were compared between FFDM and DBT groups. RESULTS. Recall rate was significantly lower with DBT than with FFDM (7.9% vs 10.1%; p <.001). DBT and FFDM did not differ in PPV1 (7.7% vs 6.1%; p = .36) or cancer detection rate (CDR) (6.1/1000 vs 6.0/1000; p = .97). Sensitivity was 96.4% for DBT and 71.4% for FFDM (p = .008). Specificity was 92.3% for DBT and 90.0% for FFDM (p <.001). With stratification by breast density, patients with nondense breast tissue had a lower recall rate with DBT than with FFDM (5.9% vs 8.8%; p <.001) and a nonsignificant increase in PPV1 (12.0% vs 6.4%; p = .05). The metrics were not otherwise different between DBT and FFDM among patients with nondense and those with dense breast tissue. Recall rates were lower with DBT than with FFDM among both patients who underwent mastectomy (7.8% vs 9.1%; p = .09) and those who underwent lumpectomy (7.9% vs 11.0%; p = .002). PPV1 and CDR were not different between DBT and FFDM among patients who underwent mastectomy and those who underwent lumpectomy. CONCLUSION. For patients with a personal history of breast cancer who have nondense breasts, the use of DBT as opposed to FFDM reduces recall rate and improves sensitivity and specificity. CDR and PPV1 remain unchanged. CLINICAL IMPACT. For women with a personal history of breast cancer and nondense breasts, DBT offers the potential to maintain the benefits of early cancer detection while reducing the potential harms of false-positive findings.