PURPOSE: To compare the recall and cancer detection rates (CDRs) at screening with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) with those at screening with two-dimensional (2D) mammography and to evaluate variations in the recall rate (RR) according to patient age, risk factors, and breast density and among individual radiologists at a single U.S. academic medical center. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant prospective study with a retrospective cohort included 85 852 asymptomatic women who presented for breast cancer screening over a 3-year period beginning in 2011. A DBT unit was introduced into the existing 2D mammography screening program, and patients were assigned to the first available machine. Ten breast-subspecialized radiologists interpreted approximately 90% of the examinations. RRs were calculated overall and according to patient age, breast density, and individual radiologist. CDRs were calculated. Single and multiple mixed-effect logistic regression analyses, χ(2) tests, and Bonferroni correction were utilized, as appropriate. RESULTS: The study included 5703 (6.6%) DBT examinations and 80 149 (93.4%) 2D mammography examinations. The DBT subgroup contained a higher proportion of patients with risk factors for breast cancer and baseline examinations. DBT was used to detect 54.3% more carcinomas (+1.9 per 1000, P < .0018) than 2D mammography. The RR was 7.51% for 2D mammography and 6.10% for DBT (absolute change, 1.41%; relative change, -18.8%; P < .0001). The DBT subgroup demonstrated a significantly lower RR for patients with extremely or heterogeneously dense breasts and for patients in their 5th and 7th decades. CONCLUSION: Implementing DBT into a U.S. breast cancer screening program significantly decreased the screening RR overall and for certain patient subgroups, while significantly increasing the CDR. These findings may encourage more widespread adoption and reimbursement of DBT and facilitate improved patient selection.
PURPOSE: To compare the recall and cancer detection rates (CDRs) at screening with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) with those at screening with two-dimensional (2D) mammography and to evaluate variations in the recall rate (RR) according to patient age, risk factors, and breast density and among individual radiologists at a single U.S. academic medical center. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant prospective study with a retrospective cohort included 85 852 asymptomatic women who presented for breast cancer screening over a 3-year period beginning in 2011. A DBT unit was introduced into the existing 2D mammography screening program, and patients were assigned to the first available machine. Ten breast-subspecialized radiologists interpreted approximately 90% of the examinations. RRs were calculated overall and according to patient age, breast density, and individual radiologist. CDRs were calculated. Single and multiple mixed-effect logistic regression analyses, χ(2) tests, and Bonferroni correction were utilized, as appropriate. RESULTS: The study included 5703 (6.6%) DBT examinations and 80 149 (93.4%) 2D mammography examinations. The DBT subgroup contained a higher proportion of patients with risk factors for breast cancer and baseline examinations. DBT was used to detect 54.3% more carcinomas (+1.9 per 1000, P < .0018) than 2D mammography. The RR was 7.51% for 2D mammography and 6.10% for DBT (absolute change, 1.41%; relative change, -18.8%; P < .0001). The DBT subgroup demonstrated a significantly lower RR for patients with extremely or heterogeneously dense breasts and for patients in their 5th and 7th decades. CONCLUSION: Implementing DBT into a U.S. breast cancer screening program significantly decreased the screening RR overall and for certain patient subgroups, while significantly increasing the CDR. These findings may encourage more widespread adoption and reimbursement of DBT and facilitate improved patient selection.
Authors: Stephen L Rose; Andra L Tidwell; Louis J Bujnoch; Anne C Kushwaha; Amy S Nordmann; Russell Sexton Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Kathleen R Brandt; Daniel A Craig; Tanya L Hoskins; Tara L Henrichsen; Emily C Bendel; Stephanie R Brandt; Jay Mandrekar Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Per Skaane; Andriy I Bandos; Randi Gullien; Ellen B Eben; Ulrika Ekseth; Unni Haakenaasen; Mina Izadi; Ingvild N Jebsen; Gunnar Jahr; Mona Krager; Loren T Niklason; Solveig Hofvind; David Gur Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-01-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: László Tabár; Bedrich Vitak; Tony Hsiu-Hsi Chen; Amy Ming-Fang Yen; Anders Cohen; Tibor Tot; Sherry Yueh-Hsia Chiu; Sam Li-Sheng Chen; Jean Ching-Yuan Fann; Johan Rosell; Helena Fohlin; Robert A Smith; Stephen W Duffy Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-06-28 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Ellen Paap; Roland Holland; Gerard J den Heeten; Guido van Schoor; Anita A M Botterweck; André L M Verbeek; Mireille J M Broeders Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2010-05-30 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Kathleen A Cronin; Stephanie Bailey; Donald A Berry; Harry J de Koning; Gerrit Draisma; Hui Huang; Sandra J Lee; Mark Munsell; Sylvia K Plevritis; Peter Ravdin; Clyde B Schechter; Bronislava Sigal; Michael A Stoto; Natasha K Stout; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; John Venier; Marvin Zelen; Eric J Feuer Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2009-11-17 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Tiina Lehtimäki; Mikael Lundin; Nina Linder; Harri Sihto; Kaija Holli; Taina Turpeenniemi-Hujanen; Vesa Kataja; Jorma Isola; Heikki Joensuu; Johan Lundin Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2011-12-28 Impact factor: 6.466
Authors: Eric D Larson; Won-Mean Lee; Marilyn A Roubidoux; Mitchell M Goodsitt; Chris Lashbrook; Cynthia E Davis; Oliver D Kripfgans; Paul L Carson Journal: Ultrasound Med Biol Date: 2018-01-05 Impact factor: 2.998
Authors: Jun Wei; Heang-Ping Chan; Mark A Helvie; Marilyn A Roubidoux; Colleen H Neal; Yao Lu; Lubomir M Hadjiiski; Chuan Zhou Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2019-02-11 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Heather B Neuman; Jessica R Schumacher; Amanda B Francescatti; Taiwo Adesoye; Stephen B Edge; Elizabeth S Burnside; David J Vanness; Menggang Yu; Yajuan Si; Dan McKellar; David P Winchester; Caprice C Greenberg Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2016-08-04 Impact factor: 5.344