Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 1/2016

01.02.2016 | Clinical trial

Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography compared to digital mammography alone: a cohort study within the PROSPR consortium

verfasst von: 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

Erschienen in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment | Ausgabe 1/2016

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

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. Retrospective analysis of prospective cohort data from three research centers performing DBT screening in the PROSPR consortium from 2011 to 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. 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. 4.4/1000 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. 0.60/1000 screened, p = 0.347). Our data support implementation of DBT screening based on increased cancer detection, reduced recall, and no difference in false negative screening examinations.
Literatur
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Sechopoulos I (2013) A review of breast tomosynthesis. Part II., Image reconstruction, processing and analysis, and advanced applications. Med Phys 40(1):014302CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Sechopoulos I (2013) A review of breast tomosynthesis. Part II., Image reconstruction, processing and analysis, and advanced applications. Med Phys 40(1):014302CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Niklason LT, Christian BT, LE Niklason (1997) Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging. Radiology 205.2:399–406CrossRef Niklason LT, Christian BT, LE Niklason (1997) Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging. Radiology 205.2:399–406CrossRef
4.
Zurück zum Zitat 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(1):47–56CrossRefPubMed 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(1):47–56CrossRefPubMed
5.
Zurück zum Zitat 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(7):583–589CrossRefPubMed 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(7):583–589CrossRefPubMed
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Rose SL, Tidwell AL, Bujnoch LJ et al (2013) Implementation of breast tomosynthesis in a routine screening practice: an observational study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 200(6):1401–1408CrossRefPubMed Rose SL, Tidwell AL, Bujnoch LJ et al (2013) Implementation of breast tomosynthesis in a routine screening practice: an observational study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 200(6):1401–1408CrossRefPubMed
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Friedewald SM, Rafferty EA, Rose SL et al (2014) Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. JAMA 311(24):2499–2507CrossRefPubMed Friedewald SM, Rafferty EA, Rose SL et al (2014) Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. JAMA 311(24):2499–2507CrossRefPubMed
8.
Zurück zum Zitat McCarthy AM, Kontos D, Synnestvedt M (2014) Screening outcomes following implementation of digital breast tomosynthesis in a general-population screening program. J Natl Cancer Inst 106(11):dju316CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral McCarthy AM, Kontos D, Synnestvedt M (2014) Screening outcomes following implementation of digital breast tomosynthesis in a general-population screening program. J Natl Cancer Inst 106(11):dju316CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Durand MA, Haas BM, Xiapan Y (2014) Early clinical experience with digital breast tomosynthesis for screening mammography. Radiology 274:1313–1319 Durand MA, Haas BM, Xiapan Y (2014) Early clinical experience with digital breast tomosynthesis for screening mammography. Radiology 274:1313–1319
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Lourenco AP, Barry-Brooks M, Baird GL, Tuttle A, Mainiero MB (2014) Changes in recall type and patient treatment following implementation of screening digital breast tomosynthesis. Radiology 274:1403–1417 Lourenco AP, Barry-Brooks M, Baird GL, Tuttle A, Mainiero MB (2014) Changes in recall type and patient treatment following implementation of screening digital breast tomosynthesis. Radiology 274:1403–1417
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Haas BM, Kalr V, Geisel J et al (2013) Comparison of tomosynthesis plus digital mammography and digital mammography alone for breast cancer screening. Radiology 269(3):694–700CrossRefPubMed Haas BM, Kalr V, Geisel J et al (2013) Comparison of tomosynthesis plus digital mammography and digital mammography alone for breast cancer screening. Radiology 269(3):694–700CrossRefPubMed
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Onego T, Beaber EF, Sprague BL et al (2014) Breast cancer screening in an era of personalized regimens: a conceptual model and National Cancer Institute initiative for risk-based and preference-based approaches at a population level. Cancer 120(19):2955–2964CrossRef Onego T, Beaber EF, Sprague BL et al (2014) Breast cancer screening in an era of personalized regimens: a conceptual model and National Cancer Institute initiative for risk-based and preference-based approaches at a population level. Cancer 120(19):2955–2964CrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat D’Orsi CJ, Bassett LW, Berg WA, et al, (2003) BI-RADS: Mammography, 4th edition. In: D’Orsi CJ, Mendelson EB, Ikeda DM, et al: Breast imaging reporting and data system: ACR BI-RADS—breast Imaging Atlas. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; D’Orsi CJ, Bassett LW, Berg WA, et al, (2003) BI-RADS: Mammography, 4th edition. In: D’Orsi CJ, Mendelson EB, Ikeda DM, et al: Breast imaging reporting and data system: ACR BI-RADS—breast Imaging Atlas. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology;
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Houssami N, Macaskill P, Bernardi D et al (2014) Breast screening using 2D-mammography or integrating digital breast tomosynthesis (3D-mammography) for single-reading or double-reading—evidence to guide future screening strategies. Eur J Cancer 50(10):1799–1807CrossRefPubMed Houssami N, Macaskill P, Bernardi D et al (2014) Breast screening using 2D-mammography or integrating digital breast tomosynthesis (3D-mammography) for single-reading or double-reading—evidence to guide future screening strategies. Eur J Cancer 50(10):1799–1807CrossRefPubMed
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Houssami N, Abraham LA, Kerlikowske K (2013) Risk factors for second screen-detected or interval breast cancers in women with a personal history of breast cancer participating in mammography screening. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 22:946–961CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Houssami N, Abraham LA, Kerlikowske K (2013) Risk factors for second screen-detected or interval breast cancers in women with a personal history of breast cancer participating in mammography screening. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 22:946–961CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
Zurück zum Zitat McDonald ES, Oustimov A, Weinstein SP, Synnestvedt M, Schnall M, Conant EF (2016) Effectiveness of digital breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography: Outcomes analysis from 3 years of breast cancer screening. JAMA Onc. doi:10.001/jamaoncol.2015.5536 McDonald ES, Oustimov A, Weinstein SP, Synnestvedt M, Schnall M, Conant EF (2016) Effectiveness of digital breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography: Outcomes analysis from 3 years of breast cancer screening. JAMA Onc. doi:10.​001/​jamaoncol.​2015.​5536
Metadaten
Titel
Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography compared to digital mammography alone: a cohort study within the PROSPR consortium
verfasst von
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
Publikationsdatum
01.02.2016
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment / Ausgabe 1/2016
Print ISSN: 0167-6806
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-7217
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-016-3695-1

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2016

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 1/2016 Zur Ausgabe

Update Onkologie

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