"skipMainNavigation"
closeDrawerMenuopenDrawerMenu
Search
Quick Search in Journals
Quick Search anywhere
Advanced Search
Radiology
Menu
  • Information
    • Previous
    Next
    Original Research

    Mammographic Screening in Routine Practice: Multisite Study of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Digital Mammography Screenings

    Published Online:Mar 14 2023https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.221571
    See editorial byMin Sun Bae

    Abstract

    Compared with digital mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis showed lower recall and higher positive predictive value of recall, cancer detection rate, and biopsy rate, but similar positive predictive value of biopsy.

    Background

    The use of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is increasing over digital mammography (DM) following studies demonstrating lower recall rates (RRs) and higher cancer detection rates (CDRs). However, inconsistent interpretation of evidence on the risks and benefits of mammography has resulted in varying screening mammography recommendations.

    Purpose

    To evaluate screening outcomes among women in the United States who underwent routine DM or DBT mammographic screening.

    Materials and Methods

    This retrospective cohort study included women aged 40–79 years who underwent DM or DBT screening mammograms between January 2014 and December 2020. Outcomes of RR, CDR, positive predictive value of recall (PPV1), biopsy rate, and positive predictive value of biopsy (PPV3) were compared between DM and DBT with use of adjusted multivariable logistic regression models.

    Results

    A total of 2 528 063 screening mammograms from 1 100 447 women (mean age, 57 years ± 10 [SD]) were included. In crude analyses, DBT (1 693 727 screening mammograms vs 834 336 DM screening mammograms) demonstrated lower RR (10.3% [95% CI: 10.3, 10.4] for DM vs 8.9% [95% CI: 8.9, 9.0] for DBT; P < .001) and higher CDR (4.5 of 1000 screening mammograms [95% CI: 4.3, 4.6] vs 5.3 of 1000 [95% CI: 5.2, 5.5]; P < .001), PPV1 (4.3% [95% CI: 4.2, 4.5] vs 5.9% [95% CI: 5.7, 6.0]; P < .001), and biopsy rates (14.5 of 1000 screening mammograms [95% CI: 14.2, 14.7] vs 17.6 of 1000 [95% CI: 17.4, 17.8]; P < .001). PPV3 was similar between cohorts (30.0% [95% CI: 29.2, 30.9] for DM vs 29.3% [95% CI: 28.7, 29.9] for DBT; P = .16). After adjustment for age, breast density, site, and index year, associations remained stable with respect to statistical significance.

    Conclusion

    Women undergoing digital breast tomosynthesis had improved screening mammography outcomes compared with women who underwent digital mammography.

    © RSNA, 2023

    Supplemental material is available for this article.

    See also the editorial by Bae and Seo in this issue.

    Download as PowerPoint

    References

    • 1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2021. CA Cancer J Clin 2021;71(1):7–33. [Published correction appears in CA Cancer J Clin 2021;71(4):359.] Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 2. Nelson HD, Fu R, Cantor A, Pappas M, Daeges M, Humphrey L. Effectiveness of breast cancer screening: systematic review and meta-analysis to update the 2009 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation. Ann Intern Med 2016;164(4):244–255. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 3. Korhonen KE, Conant EF, Cohen EA, Synnestvedt M, McDonald ES, Weinstein SP. Breast cancer conspicuity on simultaneously acquired digital mammographic images versus digital breast tomosynthesis images. Radiology 2019;292(1):69–76. Link, Google Scholar
    • 4. Østerås BH, Martinsen ACT, Gullien R, Skaane P. Digital mammography versus breast tomosynthesis: impact of breast density on diagnostic performance in population-based screening. Radiology 2019;293(1):60–68. Link, Google Scholar
    • 5. Alsheik N, Blount L, Qiong Q, et al. Outcomes by race in breast cancer screening with digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography. J Am Coll Radiol 2021;18(7):906–918. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 6. Alsheik NH, Dabbous F, Pohlman SK, et al. Comparison of resource utilization and clinical outcomes following screening with digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: findings from a learning health system. Acad Radiol 2019;26(5):597–605. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 7. Conant EF, Zuckerman SP, McDonald ES, et al. Five consecutive years of screening with digital breast tomosynthesis: outcomes by screening year and round. Radiology 2020;295(2):285–293. Link, Google Scholar
    • 8. Conant EF, Barlow WE, Herschorn SD, et al. Association of digital breast tomosynthesis vs digital mammography with cancer detection and recall rates by age and breast density. JAMA Oncol 2019;5(5):635–642. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 9. McDonald ES, Oustimov A, Weinstein SP, Synnestvedt MB, Schnall M, Conant EF. Effectiveness of digital breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography: outcomes analysis from 3 years of breast cancer screening. JAMA Oncol 2016;2(6):737–743. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 10. McDonald ES, McCarthy AM, Akhtar AL, Synnestvedt MB, Schnall M, Conant EF. Baseline screening mammography: performance of full-field digital mammography versus digital breast tomosynthesis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2015;205(5):1143–1148. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 11. Lowry KP, Coley RY, Miglioretti DL, et al. Screening performance of digital breast tomosynthesis vs digital mammography in community practice by patient age, screening round, and breast density. JAMA Netw Open 2020;3(7):e2011792. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 12. Conant EF, Beaber EF, Sprague BL, et al. Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography compared to digital mammography alone: a cohort study within the PROSPR consortium. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2016;156(1):109–116. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 13. Libesman S, Zackrisson S, Hofvind S, et al. An individual participant data meta-analysis of breast cancer detection and recall rates for digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography population screening. Clin Breast Cancer 2022;22(5):e647–e654. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 14. Rafferty EA, Park JM, Philpotts LE, et al. Assessing radiologist performance using combined digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography alone: results of a multicenter, multireader trial. Radiology 2013;266(1):104–113. Link, Google Scholar
    • 15. Richman IB, Long JB, Hoag JR, et al. Comparative effectiveness of digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer screening among women 40-64 years old. J Natl Cancer Inst 2021;113(11):1515–1522. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 16. Siu AL; U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 2016;164(4):279–296. [Published correction appears in Ann Intern Med 2016;164(6):448.] Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 17. Monticciolo DL, Newell MS, Hendrick RE, et al. Breast cancer screening for average-risk women: recommendations from the ACR Commission on Breast Imaging. J Am Coll Radiol 2017;14(9):1137–1143. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 18. American Cancer Society Recommendations for the Early Detection of Breast Cancer. https://www.cancer.org/cancer/breast-cancer/screening-tests-and-early-detection/american-cancer-society-recommendations-for-the-early-detection-of-breast-cancer.html. Accessed April 16, 2022. Google Scholar
    • 19. Rafferty EA, Rose SL, Miller DP, et al. Effect of age on breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2017;164(3):659–666. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 20. Phi XA, Tagliafico A, Houssami N, Greuter MJW, de Bock GH. Digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer screening and diagnosis in women with dense breasts – a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Cancer 2018;18(1):380. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 21. Hovda T, Brandal SHB, Sebuødegård S, et al. Screening outcome for consecutive examinations with digital breast tomosynthesis versus standard digital mammography in a population-based screening program. Eur Radiol 2019;29(12):6991–6999. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 22. Houssami N, Zackrisson S, Blazek K, et al. Meta-analysis of prospective studies evaluating breast cancer detection and interval cancer rates for digital breast tomosynthesis versus mammography population screening. Eur J Cancer 2021;148:14–23. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 23. Kerlikowske K, Su YR, Sprague BL, et al. Association of screening with digital breast tomosynthesis vs digital mammography with risk of interval invasive and advanced breast cancer. JAMA 2022;327(22):2220–2230. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 24. Winter AM, Kazmi S, Hardy AK, Bennett DL. Comparison of interval breast cancers with 2D digital mammography versus 3D digital breast tomosynthesis in a large community-based practice. Breast J 2020;26(10):1953–1959. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 25. Lee CI, Zhu W, Onega T, et al. Comparative access to and use of digital breast tomosynthesis screening by women’s race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status. JAMA Netw Open 2021;4(2):e2037546. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 26. Sprague BL, Coley RY, Kerlikowske K, et al. Assessment of radiologist performance in breast cancer screening using digital breast tomosynthesis vs digital mammography. JAMA Netw Open 2020;3(3):e201759. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 27. Bernstein MH, Baird GL, Lourenco AP. Digital Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography recall and false-positive rates by time of day and reader experience. Radiology 2022;303(1):63–68. Link, Google Scholar
    • 28. Tucker L, Gilbert FJ, Astley SM, et al. Does reader performance with digital breast tomosynthesis vary according to experience with two-dimensional mammography? Radiology 2017;283(2):371–380. Link, Google Scholar
    • 29. Mathur MB, Ding P, Riddell CA, VanderWeele TJ. Web site and R package for computing e-values. Epidemiology 2018;29(5):e45–e47. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 30. Castells X, Molins E, Macià F. Cumulative false positive recall rate and association with participant related factors in a population based breast cancer screening programme. J Epidemiol Community Health 2006;60(4):316–321. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar

    Article History

    Received: July 1 2022
    Revision requested: Sept 8 2022
    Revision received: Jan 6 2023
    Accepted: Jan 31 2023
    Published online: Mar 14 2023