Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Typ-2-Diabetes und Adipositas Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Fachpsychotherapie Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende Patientenratgeber
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
European Radiology
Erschienen in:

20.05.2021 | Breast

Breast cancer screening in women with and without implants: retrospective study comparing digital mammography to digital mammography combined with digital breast tomosynthesis

verfasst von: Ethan O. Cohen, Rachel E. Perry, Hilda H. Tso, Kanchan A. Phalak, Michele D. Lesslie, Karen E. Gerlach, Jia Sun, Ashmitha Srinivasan, Jessica W. T. Leung

Erschienen in: European Radiology | Ausgabe 12/2021

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Objectives

Compare four groups being screened: women without breast implants undergoing digital mammography (DM), women without breast implants undergoing DM with digital breast tomosynthesis (DM/DBT), women with implants undergoing DM, and women with implants undergoing DM/DBT.

Methods

Mammograms from February 2011 to March 2017 were retrospectively reviewed after 13,201 were excluded for a unilateral implant or prior breast cancer. Patients had been allowed to choose between DM and DM/DBT screening. Mammography performance metrics were compared using chi-square tests.

Results

Six thousand forty-one women with implants and 91,550 women without implants were included. In mammograms without implants, DM (n = 113,973) and DM/DBT (n = 61,896) yielded recall rates (RRs) of 8.53% and 6.79% (9726/113,973 and 4204/61,896, respectively, p < .001), cancer detection rates per 1000 exams (CDRs) of 3.96 and 5.12 (451/113,973 and 317/61,896, respectively, p = .003), and positive predictive values for recall (PPV1s) of 4.64% and 7.54% (451/9726 and 317/4204, respectively, p < .001), respectively. In mammograms with implants, DM (n = 6815) and DM/DBT (n = 5138) yielded RRs of 5.81% and 4.87% (396/6815 and 250/5138, respectively, p = .158), CDRs of 2.49 and 2.92 (17/6815 and 15/5138, respectively, p > 0.999), and PPV1s of 4.29% and 6.0% (17/396 and 15/250, respectively, p > 0.999), respectively.

Conclusions

DM/DBT significantly improved recall rates, cancer detection rates, and positive predictive values for recall compared to DM alone in women without implants. DM/DBT performance in women with implants trended towards similar improvements, though no metric was statistically significant.

Key Points

• Digital mammography with tomosynthesis improved recall rates, cancer detection rates, and positive predictive values for recall compared to digital mammography alone for women without implants.
• Digital mammography with tomosynthesis trended towards improving recall rates, cancer detection rates, and positive predictive values for recall compared to digital mammography alone for women with implants, but these trends were not statistically significant — likely related to sample size.
Literatur
1.
Friedewald SM, Rafferty EA, Rose SL et al (2014) Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. JAMA 311:2499–2507
2.
Ciatto S, Houssami N, Bernardi D et al (2013) Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. Lancet Oncol 14:583–589CrossRef
3.
Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R et al (2013) Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology 267:47–56CrossRef
4.
Gilbert FJ, Tucker L, Young KC (2016) Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): a review of the evidence for use as a screening tool. Clin Radiol 71:141–150CrossRef
5.
Hodgson R, Heywang-Köbrunner SH, Harvey SC et al (2016) Systematic review of 3D mammography for breast cancer screening. Breast 27:52–61CrossRef
6.
Skaane P, Bandos AI, Niklason LT et al (2019) Digital mammography versus digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in breast cancer screening: The Oslo Tomosynthesis Screening Trial. Radiology 291:23–30CrossRef
7.
Zackrisson S, Lång K, Rosso A et al (2018) One-view breast tomosynthesis versus two-view mammography in the Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial (MBTST): a prospective, population-based, diagnostic accuracy study. Lancet Oncol 19:1493–1503CrossRef
8.
Durand MA, Haas BM, Yao X et al (2015) Early clinical experience with digital breast tomosynthesis for screening mammography. Radiology 274:85–92CrossRef
9.
Marinovich ML, Hunter KE, Macaskill P, Houssami N (2018) Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis or mammography: a meta-analysis of cancer detection and recall. J Natl Cancer Inst 110:942–949CrossRef
10.
Cohen EO, Weaver OO, Tso HH, Gerlach KE, Leung JWT (2020) Breast cancer screening via digital mammography, synthetic mammography, and tomosynthesis. Am J Prev Med 58:470–472CrossRef
11.
Butler R, Conant E, Liane P (2019) Digital breast tomosynthesis: what have we learned? J Breast Imaging 1:9–22CrossRef
12.
Pattacini P, Nitrosi A, Giorgi Rossi P et al (2018) Digital mammography versus digital mammography plus tomosynthesis for breast cancer screening: The Reggio Emilia Tomosynthesis Randomized Trial. Radiology 288:375–385CrossRef
13.
Roth RG, Maidment ADA, Weinstein SP, Roth SO, Conant EF (2014) Digital breast tomosynthesis: lessons learned from early clinical implementation. Radiographics 34:E89–e102CrossRef
14.
Phi XA, Tagliafico A, Houssami N, Greuter MJW, de Bock GH (2018) Digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer screening and diagnosis in women with dense breasts - a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Cancer 18:380CrossRef
15.
McDonald ES, McCarthy AM, Akhtar AL, Synnestvedt MB, Schnall M, Conant EF (2015) Baseline screening mammography: performance of full-field digital mammography versus digital breast tomosynthesis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 205:1143–1148CrossRef
16.
17.
Leberfinger AN, Behar BJ, Williams NC et al (2017) Breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma: a systematic review. JAMA Surg 152:1161–1168CrossRef
18.
Eklund GW, Busby RC, Miller SH, Job JS (1988) Improved imaging of the augmented breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol 151:469–473CrossRef
19.
Sá Dos Reis C, Gremion I, Richli Meystre N (2020) Study of breast implants mammography examinations for identification of suitable image quality criteria. Insights Imaging 11:3CrossRef
20.
Fajardo LL, Harvey JA, McAleese KA, Roberts CC, Granstrom P (1995) Breast cancer diagnosis in women with subglandular silicone gel-filled augmentation implants. Radiology 194:859–862CrossRef
21.
Silverstein MJ, Gierson ED, Gamagami P, Handel N, Waisman JR (1990) Breast cancer diagnosis and prognosis in women augmented with silicone gel-filled implants. Cancer 66:97–101CrossRef
22.
Silverstein MJ, Handel N, Gamagami P (1991) The effect of silicone-gel-filled implants on mammography. Cancer 68:1159–1163CrossRef
23.
Azzi AJ, Gornitsky J, Viezel-Mathieu A, Lessard L (2018) The impact of implant location on breast cancer characteristics in previously augmented patients: a systematic literature analysis. J Cancer Prev 23:93–98CrossRef
24.
Miglioretti DL, Rutter CM, Geller BM et al (2004) Effect of breast augmentation on the accuracy of mammography and cancer characteristics. JAMA 291:442–450CrossRef
25.
Skinner KA, Silberman H, Dougherty W et al (2001) Breast cancer after augmentation mammoplasty. Ann Surg Oncol 8:138–144CrossRef
26.
Lavigne E, Holowaty EJ, Pan SY et al (2013) Breast cancer detection and survival among women with cosmetic breast implants: systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. BMJ 346:f2399CrossRef
27.
Lavigne E, Holowaty EJ, Pan SY et al (2012) Do breast implants adversely affect prognosis among those subsequently diagnosed with breast cancer? Findings from an extended follow-up of a Canadian cohort. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 21:1868–1876CrossRef
28.
Kam K, Lee E, Pairawan S et al (2015) The effect of breast implants on mammogram outcomes. Am Surg 81:1053–1056CrossRef
29.
Jakubietz MG, Janis JE, Jakubietz RG, Rohrich RJ (2004) Breast augmentation: cancer concerns and mammography-a literature review. Plast Reconstr Surg 113:117e–122eCrossRef
30.
Handel N, Silverstein MJ (2006) Breast cancer diagnosis and prognosis in augmented women. Plast Reconstr Surg 118:587–593 discussion 594-586CrossRef
31.
Xie L, Brisson J, Holowaty EJ, Villeneuve PJ, Mao Y (2010) The influence of cosmetic breast augmentation on the stage distribution and prognosis of women subsequently diagnosed with breast cancer. Int J Cancer 126:2182–2190PubMed
32.
Sosin M, Devulapalli C, Fehring C et al (2018) Breast cancer following augmentation mammaplasty: a case-control study. Plast Reconstr Surg 141:833–840CrossRef
33.
Cohen EO, Tso HH, Phalak KA, Mayo RC, Leung JWT (2018) Screening mammography findings from one standard projection only in the era of full-field digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 211:445–451CrossRef
34.
Movik E, Dalsbø TK, Fagelund BC, Friberg EG, Håheim LL, Skår Å (2017) Digital breast tomosynthesis with hologic 3D mammography selenia dimensions system for use in breast cancer screening: a single technology assessment from Norwegian Institute of Public Health (Folkehelseinstitutttet). Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo
35.
Lee CS, Bhargavan-Chatfield M, Burnside ES, Nagy P, Sickles EA (2016) The National Mammography Database: preliminary data. AJR Am J Roentgenol 206:883–890CrossRef
36.
Lehman CD, Arao RF, Sprague BL et al (2017) National performance benchmarks for modern screening digital mammography: update from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Radiology 283:49–58CrossRef
37.
Welch HG, Prorok PC, O'Malley AJ, Kramer BS (2016) Breast-cancer tumor size, overdiagnosis, and mammography screening effectiveness. N Engl J Med 375:1438–1447CrossRef
38.
Freer PE (2015) Mammographic breast density: impact on breast cancer risk and implications for screening. Radiographics 35:302–315CrossRef
39.
Saarenmaa I, Salminen T, Geiger U et al (2001) The effect of age and density of the breast on the sensitivity of breast cancer diagnostic by mammography and ultasonography. Breast Cancer Res Treat 67:117–123CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Breast cancer screening in women with and without implants: retrospective study comparing digital mammography to digital mammography combined with digital breast tomosynthesis
verfasst von
Ethan O. Cohen
Rachel E. Perry
Hilda H. Tso
Kanchan A. Phalak
Michele D. Lesslie
Karen E. Gerlach
Jia Sun
Ashmitha Srinivasan
Jessica W. T. Leung
Publikationsdatum
20.05.2021
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in
European Radiology / Ausgabe 12/2021
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-021-08040-3

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 12/2021

Signal intensity ratio of draining vein on silent MR angiography as an indicator of high-flow arteriovenous shunt in brain arteriovenous malformation

  • Open Access
  • Magnetic Resonance

Prognostic value of response evaluation based on breast MRI after neoadjuvant treatment: a retrospective cohort study

  • Breast

The MTA score—simple and reliable, the best for now?

  • Open Access
  • Editorial Comment

Liver fibrosis staging by deep learning: a visual-based explanation of diagnostic decisions of the model

  • Open Access
  • Imaging Informatics and Artificial Intelligence

The value of various peritumoral radiomic features in differentiating the invasiveness of adenocarcinoma manifesting as ground-glass nodules

  • Chest

Bosniak Classification version 2019: validation and comparison to original classification in pathologically confirmed cystic masses

  • Urogenital

Neu im Fachgebiet Radiologie

Röntgen-Thorax oder LDCT fürs Lungenscreening nach HNSCC?

Personen, die an einem Plattenepithelkarzinom im Kopf-Hals-Bereich erkrankt sind, haben ein erhöhtes Risiko für Metastasen oder zweite Primärmalignome der Lunge. Eine Studie hat untersucht, wie die radiologische Überwachung aussehen sollte.

Statine: Was der G-BA-Beschluss für Praxen bedeutet

Nach dem G-BA-Beschluss zur erweiterten Verordnungsfähigkeit von Lipidsenkern rechnet die DEGAM mit 200 bis 300 neuen Dauerpatienten pro Praxis. Im Interview erläutert Präsidiumsmitglied Erika Baum, wie Hausärztinnen und Hausärzte am besten vorgehen.

Brustdichte nicht mit Multivitaminpräparat-Einnahme assoziiert

Der regelmäßige Gebrauch von Nahrungsergänzungsmitteln scheint nicht die mammografische Brustdichte zu erhöhen. In einer US-amerikanischen Studie jedenfalls ließ sich ein derartiger Zusammenhang nicht bestätigen.

Erhöhte Suizidrate unter US-Ärztinnen

Während der Arztberuf Männer eher vor Suizid schützt, erhöht er das Risiko bei Frauen – zumindest in den USA: Die Suizidinzidenz unter Ärztinnen ist um die Hälfte höher als unter Frauen mit anderen Berufen. Männliche Ärzte töten sich dennoch wesentlich häufiger selbst als weibliche.

Update Radiologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen
Bildnachweise