Literature DB >> 30816931

Association of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis vs Digital Mammography With Cancer Detection and Recall Rates by Age and Breast Density.

Emily F Conant1, William E Barlow2, Sally D Herschorn3,4, Donald L Weaver4,5, Elisabeth F Beaber6, Anna N A Tosteson7,8,9, Jennifer S Haas10, Kathryn P Lowry11, Natasha K Stout12, Amy Trentham-Dietz13, Roberta M diFlorio-Alexander14, Christopher I Li15, Mitchell D Schnall1, Tracy Onega9,16,17,18, Brian L Sprague3,4,19.   

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Breast cancer screening examinations using digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) has been shown to be associated with decreased false-positive test results and increased breast cancer detection compared with digital mammography (DM). Little is known regarding the size and stage of breast cancer types detected and their association with age and breast density.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether screening examinations using DBT detect breast cancers that are associated with an improved prognosis and to compare the detection rates by patient age and breast density. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This retrospective analysis of prospective cohort data from 3 research centers in the Population-based Research Optimizing Screening Through Personalized Regimens (PROSPR) consortium included data of women aged 40 to 74 years who underwent screening examinations using DM and DBT from January 1, 2011, through September 30, 2014. Statistical analysis was performed from November 8, 2017, to August 14, 2018. EXPOSURES: Use of DBT as a supplement to DM at breast cancer screening examination. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Recall rate, cancer detection rate, positive predictive value, biopsy rate, and distribution of invasive cancer subtypes.
RESULTS: Among 96 269 women (mean [SD] patient age for all examinations, 55.9 [9.0] years), patient age was 56.4 (9.0) years for DM and 54.6 (8.9) years for DBT. Of 180 340 breast cancer screening examinations, 129 369 examinations (71.7%) used DM and 50 971 examinations (28.3%) used DBT. Screening examination with DBT (73 of 99 women [73.7%]) was associated with the detection of smaller, more often node-negative, HER2-negative, invasive cancers compared with DM (276 of 422 women [65.4%]). Screening examination with DBT was also associated with lower recall (odds ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.57-0.72; P < .001) and higher cancer detection (odds ratio, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.05-1.89; P = .02) compared with DM for all age groups even when stratified by breast density. The largest increase in cancer detection rate and the greatest shift toward smaller, node-negative invasive cancers detected with DBT was for women aged 40 to 49 years. For women aged 40 to 49 years with nondense breasts, the cancer detection rate for examinations using DBT was 1.70 per 1000 women higher compared with the rate using DM; for women with dense breasts, the cancer detection rate was 2.27 per 1000 women higher for DBT. For these younger women, screening with DBT was associated with only 7 of 28 breast cancers (25.0%) categorized as poor prognosis compared with 19 of 47 breast cancers (40.4%) when screening with DM. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The findings suggest that screening with DBT is associated with increased specificity and an increased proportion of breast cancers detected with better prognosis compared with DM. In the subgroup of women aged 40 to 49 years, routine DBT screening may have a favorable risk-benefit ratio.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30816931      PMCID: PMC6512257          DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.7078

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Oncol        ISSN: 2374-2437            Impact factor:   31.777


  21 in total

1.  Implementation of breast tomosynthesis in a routine screening practice: an observational study.

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

2.  Screening outcomes following implementation of digital breast tomosynthesis in a general-population screening program.

Authors:  Anne Marie McCarthy; Despina Kontos; Marie Synnestvedt; Kay See Tan; Daniel F Heitjan; Mitchell Schnall; Emily F Conant
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2014-10-13       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  Early clinical experience with digital breast tomosynthesis for screening mammography.

Authors:  Melissa A Durand; Brian M Haas; Xiaopan Yao; Jaime L Geisel; Madhavi Raghu; Regina J Hooley; Laura J Horvath; Liane E Philpotts
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2014-09-01       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Biologic Profiles of Invasive Breast Cancers Detected Only With Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.

Authors:  Jin You Kim; Hyun Jung Kang; Jong Ki Shin; Nam Kyung Lee; You Seon Song; Kyung Jin Nam; Ki Seok Choo
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2017-08-23       Impact factor: 3.959

5.  Interval breast cancers in the 'screening with tomosynthesis or standard mammography' (STORM) population-based trial.

Authors:  Nehmat Houssami; Daniela Bernardi; Francesca Caumo; Silvia Brunelli; Carmine Fantò; Marvi Valentini; Giovanna Romanucci; Maria A Gentilini; Manuel Zorzi; Petra Macaskill
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2018-01-09       Impact factor: 4.380

6.  Effect of age on breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Rafferty; Stephen L Rose; Dave P Miller; Melissa A Durand; Emily F Conant; Debra S Copit; Sarah M Friedewald; Donna M Plecha; Ingrid L Ott; Mary K Hayes; Kara L Carlson; Thomas M Cink; Lora D Barke; Linda N Greer; Loren T Niklason
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2017-05-18       Impact factor: 4.872

7.  Effectiveness of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Compared With Digital Mammography: Outcomes Analysis From 3 Years of Breast Cancer Screening.

Authors:  Elizabeth S McDonald; Andrew Oustimov; Susan P Weinstein; Marie B Synnestvedt; Mitchell Schnall; Emily F Conant
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2016-06-01       Impact factor: 31.777

8.  Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography.

Authors:  Sarah M Friedewald; Elizabeth A Rafferty; Stephen L Rose; Melissa A Durand; Donna M Plecha; Julianne S Greenberg; Mary K Hayes; Debra S Copit; Kara L Carlson; Thomas M Cink; Lora D Barke; Linda N Greer; Dave P Miller; Emily F Conant
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2014-06-25       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Breast Cancer Screening Using Tomosynthesis or Mammography: A Meta-analysis of Cancer Detection and Recall.

Authors:  M Luke Marinovich; Kylie E Hunter; Petra Macaskill; Nehmat Houssami
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2018-09-01       Impact factor: 13.506

10.  Baseline Screening Mammography: Performance of Full-Field Digital Mammography Versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.

Authors:  Elizabeth S McDonald; Anne Marie McCarthy; Amana L Akhtar; Marie B Synnestvedt; Mitchell Schnall; Emily F Conant
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 3.959

View more
  36 in total

Review 1.  Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Concepts and Clinical Practice.

Authors:  Alice Chong; Susan P Weinstein; Elizabeth S McDonald; Emily F Conant
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2019-05-14       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Breast cancer screening: in the era of personalized medicine, age is just a number.

Authors:  Andrea Cozzi; Simone Schiaffino; Paolo Giorgi Rossi; Francesco Sardanelli
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2020-12

3.  Clinical Benefits, Harms, and Cost-Effectiveness of Breast Cancer Screening for Survivors of Childhood Cancer Treated With Chest Radiation : A Comparative Modeling Study.

Authors:  Jennifer M Yeh; Kathryn P Lowry; Clyde B Schechter; Lisa R Diller; Oguzhan Alagoz; Gregory T Armstrong; John M Hampton; Wendy Leisenring; Qi Liu; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Diana L Miglioretti; Chaya S Moskowitz; Kevin C Oeffinger; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Natasha K Stout
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2020-07-07       Impact factor: 25.391

4.  Breast cancer screening in average-risk women: towards personalized screening.

Authors:  Almir Gv Bitencourt; Carolina Rossi Saccarelli; Christiane Kuhl; Elizabeth A Morris
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2019-09-23       Impact factor: 3.039

5.  A collection input based support tensor machine for lesion malignancy classification in digital breast tomosynthesis.

Authors:  Benjuan Yang; Yingjiang Wu; Zhiguo Zhou; Shulong Li; Genggeng Qin; Liyuan Chen; Jing Wang
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2019-12-05       Impact factor: 3.609

6.  Consecutive Screening Rounds with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Enable Detection of Breast Cancers with Poor Prognosis.

Authors:  Linda Moy; Samantha L Heller
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2020-03-10       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Dense Breast Notification Legislation: More Reasons for Caution.

Authors:  Lydia E Pace
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2020-07       Impact factor: 5.128

8.  Performance of Dual-Energy Contrast-enhanced Digital Mammography for Screening Women at Increased Risk of Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Janice S Sung; Lizza Lebron; Delia Keating; Donna D'Alessio; Christopher E Comstock; Carol H Lee; Malcolm C Pike; Miranda Ayhan; Chaya S Moskowitz; Elizabeth A Morris; Maxine S Jochelson
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2019-08-27       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  Five Consecutive Years of Screening with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Outcomes by Screening Year and Round.

Authors:  Emily F Conant; Samantha P Zuckerman; Elizabeth S McDonald; Susan P Weinstein; Katrina E Korhonen; Julia A Birnbaum; Jennifer D Tobey; Mitchell D Schnall; Rebecca A Hubbard
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2020-03-10       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Multicenter Evaluation of Breast Cancer Screening with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in Combination with Synthetic versus Digital Mammography.

Authors:  Samantha P Zuckerman; Brian L Sprague; Donald L Weaver; Sally D Herschorn; Emily F Conant
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2020-10-13       Impact factor: 11.105

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.