Literature DB >> 35699706

Association of Screening With Digital Breast Tomosynthesis vs Digital Mammography With Risk of Interval Invasive and Advanced Breast Cancer.

Karla Kerlikowske1,2, Yu-Ru Su3, Brian L Sprague4, Anna N A Tosteson5, Diana S M Buist3, Tracy Onega6,7, Louise M Henderson8, Nila Alsheik9, Michael C S Bissell10, Ellen S O'Meara3, Christoph I Lee11, Diana L Miglioretti3,10.   

Abstract

Importance: Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) was developed with the expectation of improving cancer detection in women with dense breasts. Studies are needed to evaluate interval invasive and advanced breast cancer rates, intermediary outcomes related to breast cancer mortality, by breast density and breast cancer risk. Objective: To evaluate whether DBT screening is associated with a lower likelihood of interval invasive cancer and advanced breast cancer compared with digital mammography by extent of breast density and breast cancer risk. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cohort study of 504 427 women aged 40 to 79 years who underwent 1 003 900 screening digital mammography and 375 189 screening DBT examinations from 2011 through 2018 at 44 US Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) facilities with follow-up for cancer diagnoses through 2019 by linkage to state or regional cancer registries. Exposures: Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) breast density; BCSC 5-year breast cancer risk. Main Outcomes and Measures: Rates per 1000 examinations of interval invasive cancer within 12 months of screening mammography and advanced breast cancer (prognostic pathologic stage II or higher) within 12 months of screening mammography, both estimated with inverse probability weighting.
Results: Among 504 427 women in the study population, the median age at time of mammography was 58 years (IQR, 50-65 years). Interval invasive cancer rates per 1000 examinations were not significantly different for DBT vs digital mammography (overall, 0.57 vs 0.61, respectively; difference, -0.04; 95% CI, -0.14 to 0.06; P = .43) or among all the 836 250 examinations with BCSC 5-year risk less than 1.67% (low to average-risk) or all the 413 061 examinations with BCSC 5-year risk of 1.67% or higher (high risk) across breast density categories. Advanced cancer rates were not significantly different for DBT vs digital mammography among women at low to average risk or at high risk with almost entirely fatty, scattered fibroglandular densities, or heterogeneously dense breasts. Advanced cancer rates per 1000 examinations were significantly lower for DBT vs digital mammography for the 3.6% of women with extremely dense breasts and at high risk of breast cancer (13 291 examinations in the DBT group and 31 300 in the digital mammography group; 0.27 vs 0.80 per 1000 examinations; difference, -0.53; 95% CI, -0.97 to -0.10) but not for women at low to average risk (10 611 examinations in the DBT group and 37 796 in the digital mammography group; 0.54 vs 0.42 per 1000 examinations; difference, 0.12; 95% CI, -0.09 to 0.32). Conclusions and Relevance: Screening with DBT vs digital mammography was not associated with a significant difference in risk of interval invasive cancer and was associated with a significantly lower risk of advanced breast cancer among the 3.6% of women with extremely dense breasts and at high risk of breast cancer. No significant difference was observed in the 96.4% of women with nondense breasts, heterogeneously dense breasts, or with extremely dense breasts not at high risk.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35699706      PMCID: PMC9198754          DOI: 10.1001/jama.2022.7672

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   157.335


  35 in total

1.  Association between mammography timing and measures of screening performance in the United States.

Authors:  Bonnie C Yankaskas; Stephen H Taplin; Laura Ichikawa; Berta M Geller; Robert D Rosenberg; Patricia A Carney; Karla Kerlikowske; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Gary R Cutter; William E Barlow
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Atypical hyperplastic lesions of the female breast. A long-term follow-up study.

Authors:  D L Page; W D Dupont; L W Rogers; M S Rados
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1985-06-01       Impact factor: 6.860

3.  Implementation of Synthesized Two-dimensional Mammography in a Population-based Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Program.

Authors:  Samantha P Zuckerman; Emily F Conant; Brad M Keller; Andrew D A Maidment; Bruno Barufaldi; Susan P Weinstein; Marie Synnestvedt; Elizabeth S McDonald
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2016-07-28       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Identifying women with dense breasts at high risk for interval cancer: a cohort study.

Authors:  Karla Kerlikowske; Weiwei Zhu; Anna N A Tosteson; Brian L Sprague; Jeffrey A Tice; Constance D Lehman; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2015-05-19       Impact factor: 25.391

5.  National Performance Benchmarks for Modern Screening Digital Mammography: Update from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.

Authors:  Constance D Lehman; Robert F Arao; Brian L Sprague; Janie M Lee; Diana S M Buist; Karla Kerlikowske; Louise M Henderson; Tracy Onega; Anna N A Tosteson; Garth H Rauscher; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2016-12-05       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  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

7.  Assessment of Radiologist Performance in Breast Cancer Screening Using Digital Breast Tomosynthesis vs Digital Mammography.

Authors:  Brian L Sprague; R Yates Coley; Karla Kerlikowske; Garth H Rauscher; Louise M Henderson; Tracy Onega; Christoph I Lee; Sally D Herschorn; Anna N A Tosteson; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2020-03-02

8.  New mammography screening performance metrics based on the entire screening episode.

Authors:  Brian L Sprague; Diana L Miglioretti; Christoph I Lee; Hannah Perry; Anna A N Tosteson; Karla Kerlikowske
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2020-05-06       Impact factor: 6.860

9.  Strategies to Identify Women at High Risk of Advanced Breast Cancer During Routine Screening for Discussion of Supplemental Imaging.

Authors:  Karla Kerlikowske; Brian L Sprague; Anna N A Tosteson; Karen J Wernli; Garth H Rauscher; Dianne Johnson; Diana S M Buist; Tracy Onega; Louise M Henderson; Ellen S O'Meara; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2019-09-01       Impact factor: 21.873

10.  Comparative Access to and Use of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Screening by Women's Race/Ethnicity and Socioeconomic Status.

Authors:  Christoph I Lee; Weiwei Zhu; Tracy Onega; Louise M Henderson; Karla Kerlikowske; Brian L Sprague; Garth H Rauscher; Ellen S O'Meara; Anna N A Tosteson; Jennifer S Haas; Roberta diFlorio-Alexander; Celia Kaplan; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2021-02-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.