Sarah M Friedewald1, Elizabeth A Rafferty2, Stephen L Rose3, Melissa A Durand4, Donna M Plecha5, Julianne S Greenberg6, Mary K Hayes7, Debra S Copit8, Kara L Carlson9, Thomas M Cink10, Lora D Barke11, Linda N Greer12, Dave P Miller13, Emily F Conant14. 1. Caldwell Breast Center, Advocate Lutheran General Hospital, Park Ridge, Illinois. 2. Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. 3. TOPS Comprehensive Breast Center, Houston, Texas4Solis Women's Health, Dallas, Texas. 4. Breast Imaging Section, Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut. 5. Department of Radiology, University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio. 6. Washington Radiology Associates, Fairfax, Virginia. 7. Radiology Associates of Hollywood and Memorial Healthcare System, Hollywood, Florida. 8. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Albert Einstein Healthcare Network, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 9. Evergreen Health Breast Center and Radia Inc, Kirkland, Washington. 10. Edith Sanford Breast Health Institute, Sioux Falls, South Dakota. 11. Invision Sally Jobe Breast Centers and Radiology Imaging Associates, Denver, Colorado. 12. John C. Lincoln Breast Health and Research Center, Phoenix, Arizona. 13. ICON Clinical Research, San Francisco, California. 14. Department of Radiology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Mammography plays a key role in early breast cancer detection. Single-institution studies have shown that adding tomosynthesis to mammography increases cancer detection and reduces false-positive results. OBJECTIVE: To determine if mammography combined with tomosynthesis is associated with better performance of breast screening programs in the United States. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective analysis of screening performance metrics from 13 academic and nonacademic breast centers using mixed models adjusting for site as a random effect. EXPOSURES: Period 1: digital mammography screening examinations 1 year before tomosynthesis implementation (start dates ranged from March 2010 to October 2011 through the date of tomosynthesis implementation); period 2: digital mammography plus tomosynthesis examinations from initiation of tomosynthesis screening (March 2011 to October 2012) through December 31, 2012. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Recall rate for additional imaging, cancer detection rate, and positive predictive values for recall and for biopsy. RESULTS: A total of 454,850 examinations (n=281,187 digital mammography; n=173,663 digital mammography + tomosynthesis) were evaluated. With digital mammography, 29,726 patients were recalled and 5056 biopsies resulted in cancer diagnosis in 1207 patients (n=815 invasive; n=392 in situ). With digital mammography + tomosynthesis, 15,541 patients were recalled and 3285 biopsies resulted in cancer diagnosis in 950 patients (n=707 invasive; n=243 in situ). Model-adjusted rates per 1000 screens were as follows: for recall rate, 107 (95% CI, 89-124) with digital mammography vs 91 (95% CI, 73-108) with digital mammography + tomosynthesis; difference, -16 (95% CI, -18 to -14; P < .001); for biopsies, 18.1 (95% CI, 15.4-20.8) with digital mammography vs 19.3 (95% CI, 16.6-22.1) with digital mammography + tomosynthesis; difference, 1.3 (95% CI, 0.4-2.1; P = .004); for cancer detection, 4.2 (95% CI, 3.8-4.7) with digital mammography vs 5.4 (95% CI, 4.9-6.0) with digital mammography + tomosynthesis; difference, 1.2 (95% CI, 0.8-1.6; P < .001); and for invasive cancer detection, 2.9 (95% CI, 2.5-3.2) with digital mammography vs 4.1 (95% CI, 3.7-4.5) with digital mammography + tomosynthesis; difference, 1.2 (95% CI, 0.8-1.6; P < .001). The in situ cancer detection rate was 1.4 (95% CI, 1.2-1.6) per 1000 screens with both methods. Adding tomosynthesis was associated with an increase in the positive predictive value for recall from 4.3% to 6.4% (difference, 2.1%; 95% CI, 1.7%-2.5%; P < .001) and for biopsy from 24.2% to 29.2% (difference, 5.0%; 95% CI, 3.0%-7.0%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Addition of tomosynthesis to digital mammography was associated with a decrease in recall rate and an increase in cancer detection rate. Further studies are needed to assess the relationship to clinical outcomes.
IMPORTANCE: Mammography plays a key role in early breast cancer detection. Single-institution studies have shown that adding tomosynthesis to mammography increases cancer detection and reduces false-positive results. OBJECTIVE: To determine if mammography combined with tomosynthesis is associated with better performance of breast screening programs in the United States. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective analysis of screening performance metrics from 13 academic and nonacademic breast centers using mixed models adjusting for site as a random effect. EXPOSURES: Period 1: digital mammography screening examinations 1 year before tomosynthesis implementation (start dates ranged from March 2010 to October 2011 through the date of tomosynthesis implementation); period 2: digital mammography plus tomosynthesis examinations from initiation of tomosynthesis screening (March 2011 to October 2012) through December 31, 2012. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Recall rate for additional imaging, cancer detection rate, and positive predictive values for recall and for biopsy. RESULTS: A total of 454,850 examinations (n=281,187 digital mammography; n=173,663 digital mammography + tomosynthesis) were evaluated. With digital mammography, 29,726 patients were recalled and 5056 biopsies resulted in cancer diagnosis in 1207 patients (n=815 invasive; n=392 in situ). With digital mammography + tomosynthesis, 15,541 patients were recalled and 3285 biopsies resulted in cancer diagnosis in 950 patients (n=707 invasive; n=243 in situ). Model-adjusted rates per 1000 screens were as follows: for recall rate, 107 (95% CI, 89-124) with digital mammography vs 91 (95% CI, 73-108) with digital mammography + tomosynthesis; difference, -16 (95% CI, -18 to -14; P < .001); for biopsies, 18.1 (95% CI, 15.4-20.8) with digital mammography vs 19.3 (95% CI, 16.6-22.1) with digital mammography + tomosynthesis; difference, 1.3 (95% CI, 0.4-2.1; P = .004); for cancer detection, 4.2 (95% CI, 3.8-4.7) with digital mammography vs 5.4 (95% CI, 4.9-6.0) with digital mammography + tomosynthesis; difference, 1.2 (95% CI, 0.8-1.6; P < .001); and for invasive cancer detection, 2.9 (95% CI, 2.5-3.2) with digital mammography vs 4.1 (95% CI, 3.7-4.5) with digital mammography + tomosynthesis; difference, 1.2 (95% CI, 0.8-1.6; P < .001). The in situ cancer detection rate was 1.4 (95% CI, 1.2-1.6) per 1000 screens with both methods. Adding tomosynthesis was associated with an increase in the positive predictive value for recall from 4.3% to 6.4% (difference, 2.1%; 95% CI, 1.7%-2.5%; P < .001) and for biopsy from 24.2% to 29.2% (difference, 5.0%; 95% CI, 3.0%-7.0%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Addition of tomosynthesis to digital mammography was associated with a decrease in recall rate and an increase in cancer detection rate. Further studies are needed to assess the relationship to clinical outcomes.
Authors: Said Pertuz; Elizabeth S McDonald; Susan P Weinstein; Emily F Conant; Despina Kontos Journal: Radiology Date: 2015-10-21 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Natasha K Stout; Clyde B Schechter; Jeroen J van den Broek; Diana L Miglioretti; Martin Krapcho; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Diego Munoz; Sandra J Lee; Donald A Berry; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Oguzhan Alagoz; Karla Kerlikowske; Anna N A Tosteson; Aimee M Near; Amanda Hoeffken; Yaojen Chang; Eveline A Heijnsdijk; Gary Chisholm; Xuelin Huang; Hui Huang; Mehmet Ali Ergun; Ronald Gangnon; Brian L Sprague; Sylvia Plevritis; Eric Feuer; Harry J de Koning; Kathleen A Cronin Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2016-01-12 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Sylvia K Plevritis; Diego Munoz; Allison W Kurian; Natasha K Stout; Oguzhan Alagoz; Aimee M Near; Sandra J Lee; Jeroen J van den Broek; Xuelin Huang; Clyde B Schechter; Brian L Sprague; Juhee Song; Harry J de Koning; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Ronald Gangnon; Young Chandler; Yisheng Li; Cong Xu; Mehmet Ali Ergun; Hui Huang; Donald A Berry; Jeanne S Mandelblatt Journal: JAMA Date: 2018-01-09 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Elizabeth S McDonald; Anne Marie McCarthy; Susan P Weinstein; Mitchell D Schnall; Emily F Conant Journal: Radiology Date: 2017-07-17 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Diana L Miglioretti; Linn Abraham; Christoph I Lee; Diana S M Buist; Sally D Herschorn; Brian L Sprague; Louise M Henderson; Anna N A Tosteson; Karla Kerlikowske Journal: Radiology Date: 2019-02-26 Impact factor: 11.105