Literature DB >> 30888932

The Potential Impact of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis on the Benign Biopsy Rate in Women Recalled within the UK Breast Screening Programme.

Nisha Sharma1, Michelle McMahon1, Isobel Haigh1, Yan Chen1, Barbara J G Dall1.   

Abstract

Background Multiple studies showed digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) has a higher cancer detection rate and a lower recall rate than full-field digital mammography (FFDM). However, there is a paucity of studies on whether the benign biopsy rate will be lower with DBT. Purpose To evaluate the benign biopsy rate of DBT versus that of FFDM in women recalled after breast screening within the National Health Service Breast Screening Programme. Materials and Methods This prospective single institution study included women who underwent screening FFDM or screening breast MRI between November 13, 2015, and July 29, 2016, and were recalled. Women who were recalled underwent a breast examination, additional imaging (mammography, US), and biopsy, if required. The number of interventions and the outcome of assessment were recorded. FFDM was performed at the screening appointment, and DBT images were acquired when participants attended a screening assessment within 3 weeks after screening FFDM. Two of four readers blinded to biopsy results analyzed DBT images in isolation and then in conjunction with FFDM images and any additional two-dimensional mammographic or US images. Two-tailed McNemar tests were used to test differences in sensitivity and specificity of the two conditions at 5% significance level. Results During the study period, 30 933 women underwent FFDM. A total of 1470 women were recalled (recall rate, 4.8%), and 827 were included after exclusion criteria were applied. Their mean age was 56.7 years ± 7.7 (standard deviation). A total of 145 breast cancers were detected (142 with FFDM, two with DBT only, one with surveillance MRI). Triple assessment without DBT resulted in 571 breast biopsies and enabled detection of 142 cancers. The addition of DBT would have resulted in 298 biopsies and detection of 142 cancers, reducing the number of biopsies from 571 of 827 (69.0%) to 298 of 827 (36.0%). Conclusion When compared with full-field digital mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis can reduce the benign biopsy rate while maintaining the cancer detection rate. © RSNA, 2019 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Skaane in this issue.

Entities:  

Year:  2019        PMID: 30888932     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2019180809

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  4 in total

Review 1.  Consensus Meeting of Breast Imaging: BI-RADS® and Beyond.

Authors:  Markus Müller-Schimpfle; Werner Bader; Pascal Baltzer; Maria Bernathova; Michael Fuchsjäger; Michael Golatta; Thomas H Helbich; Karin Hellerhoff; Sylvia H Heywang-Köbrunner; Claudia Kurtz; Alexander Mundinger; Katja C Siegmann-Luz; Per Skaane; Chistine Solbach; Stefanie Weigel
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2019-10-02       Impact factor: 2.860

2.  Frequency and diagnostic outcome of bilateral recall at screening mammography.

Authors:  Joost R C Lameijer; Joost Nederend; Adri C Voogd; Vivianne C G Tjan-Heijnen; Lucien E M Duijm
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2020-07-17       Impact factor: 7.396

3.  Digital breast tomosynthesis compared to diagnostic mammographic projections (including magnification) among women recalled at screening mammography: a systematic review for the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (ECIBC).

Authors:  Carlos Canelo-Aybar; Lourdes Carrera; Jessica Beltrán; Margarita Posso; David Rigau; Annette Lebeau; Axel Gräwingholt; Xavier Castells; Miranda Langendam; Elsa Pérez; Paolo Giorgi Rossi; Ruben Van Engen; Elena Parmelli; Zuleika Saz-Parkinson; Pablo Alonso-Coello
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2021-03-05       Impact factor: 4.452

4.  Reducing Unnecessary Biopsies Using Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Ultrasound in Dense and Nondense Breasts.

Authors:  Ibrahim Hadadi; Jillian Clarke; William Rae; Mark McEntee; Wendy Vincent; Ernest Ekpo
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2022-08-04       Impact factor: 3.109

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.