Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography compared to digital mammography alone: a cohort study within the PROSPR consortium

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Emily F. Conant ; Elisabeth F. Beaber…
• 关键词：Breast cancer screening ; Mammography ; Digital breast tomosynthesis
• 刊名：Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
• 出版年：2016
• 出版时间：February 2016
• 年：2016
• 卷：156
• 期：1
• 页码：109-116
• 全文大小：435 KB
• 参考文献：1.Sechopoulos I (2013) A review of breast tomosynthesis. Part I. The image acquisition process. Med Phys 40(1):014301CrossRef PubMed PubMedCentral
  2.Sechopoulos I (2013) A review of breast tomosynthesis. Part II., Image reconstruction, processing and analysis, and advanced applications. Med Phys 40(1):014302CrossRef PubMed PubMedCentral
  3.Niklason LT, Christian BT, LE Niklason (1997) Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging. Radiology 205.2:399–406CrossRef
  4.Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R et al (2013) Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology 267(1):47–56CrossRef PubMed
  5.Ciatto S, Houssami N, Bernardi D et al (2013) Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. Lancet Oncol 14(7):583–589CrossRef PubMed
  6.Rose SL, Tidwell AL, Bujnoch LJ et al (2013) Implementation of breast tomosynthesis in a routine screening practice: an observational study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 200(6):1401–1408CrossRef PubMed
  7.Friedewald SM, Rafferty EA, Rose SL et al (2014) Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. JAMA 311(24):2499–2507CrossRef PubMed
  8.McCarthy AM, Kontos D, Synnestvedt M (2014) Screening outcomes following implementation of digital breast tomosynthesis in a general-population screening program. J Natl Cancer Inst 106(11):dju316CrossRef PubMed PubMedCentral
  9.Durand MA, Haas BM, Xiapan Y (2014) Early clinical experience with digital breast tomosynthesis for screening mammography. Radiology 274:1313–1319
  10.Lourenco AP, Barry-Brooks M, Baird GL, Tuttle A, Mainiero MB (2014) Changes in recall type and patient treatment following implementation of screening digital breast tomosynthesis. Radiology 274:1403–1417
  11.Haas BM, Kalr V, Geisel J et al (2013) Comparison of tomosynthesis plus digital mammography and digital mammography alone for breast cancer screening. Radiology 269(3):694–700CrossRef PubMed
  12. http://​www.​acr.​org/​News-Publications/​News/​News-Articles/​2014/​Economics/​20141105-CMS-Establishes-Values-for-Breast-Tomosynthesis-in-2015-Final-Rule . accessed 9/30/2015
  13.Onego T, Beaber EF, Sprague BL et al (2014) Breast cancer screening in an era of personalized regimens: a conceptual model and National Cancer Institute initiative for risk-based and preference-based approaches at a population level. Cancer 120(19):2955–2964CrossRef
  14.D’Orsi CJ, Bassett LW, Berg WA, et al, (2003) BI-RADS: Mammography, 4th edition. In: D’Orsi CJ, Mendelson EB, Ikeda DM, et al: Breast imaging reporting and data system: ACR BI-RADS—breast Imaging Atlas. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology;
  15. http://​breastscreening.​cancer.​gov/​statistics/​benchmarks/​screening/​ Accessed 9/30/2015
  16.Houssami N, Macaskill P, Bernardi D et al (2014) Breast screening using 2D-mammography or integrating digital breast tomosynthesis (3D-mammography) for single-reading or double-reading—evidence to guide future screening strategies. Eur J Cancer 50(10):1799–1807CrossRef PubMed
  17.Houssami N, Abraham LA, Kerlikowske K (2013) Risk factors for second screen-detected or interval breast cancers in women with a personal history of breast cancer participating in mammography screening. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 22:946–961CrossRef PubMed PubMedCentral
  18.McDonald ES, Oustimov A, Weinstein SP, Synnestvedt M, Schnall M, Conant EF (2016) Effectiveness of digital breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography: Outcomes analysis from 3 years of breast cancer screening. JAMA Onc. doi:10.​001/​jamaoncol.​2015.​5536
  
• 作者单位：Emily F. Conant (1)
  Elisabeth F. Beaber (2)
  Brian L. Sprague (3) (4)
  Sally D. Herschorn (4) (5)
  Donald L. Weaver (4) (6)
  Tracy Onega (7) (8)
  Anna N. A. Tosteson (7) (8)
  Anne Marie McCarthy (9)
  Steven P. Poplack (10)
  Jennifer S. Haas (11)
  Katrina Armstrong (9)
  Mitchell D. Schnall (1)
  William E. Barlow (12)
  
  1. Department of Radiology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, 3400 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA
  2. Division of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA
  3. Department of Surgery, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA
  4. University of Vermont Cancer Center, Burlington, VT, USA
  5. Department of Radiology, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA
  6. Department of Pathology, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA
  7. Department of Community and Family Medicine and The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, NH, USA
  8. Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, NH, USA
  9. Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
  10. Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University of St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA
  11. Division of General Internal Medicine and Primary Care, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
  12. Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA, USA
  
• 刊物类别：Medicine
• 刊物主题：Medicine & Public Health
  Oncology
  
• 出版者：Springer Netherlands
• ISSN：1573-7217

文摘

Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is emerging as the new standard of care for breast cancer screening based on improved cancer detection coupled with reductions in recall compared to screening with digital mammography (DM) alone. However, many prior studies lack follow-up data to assess false negatives examinations. The purpose of this study is to assess if DBT is associated with improved screening outcomes based on follow-up data from tumor registries or pathology. Retrospective analysis of prospective cohort data from three research centers performing DBT screening in the PROSPR consortium from 2011 to 2014 was performed. Recall and biopsy rates were assessed from 198,881 women age 40–74 years undergoing screening (142,883 DM and 55,998 DBT examinations). Cancer, cancer detection, and false negative rates and positive predictive values were assessed on examinations with one year of follow-up. Logistic regression was used to compare DBT to DM adjusting for research center, age, prior breast imaging, and breast density. There was a reduction in recall with DBT compared to DM (8.7 vs. 10.4 %, p < 0.0001), with adjusted OR = 0.68 (95 % CI = 0.65–0.71). DBT demonstrated a statistically significant increase in cancer detection over DM (5.9 vs. 4.4/1000 screened, adjusted OR = 1.45, 95 % CI = 1.12–1.88), an improvement in PPV1 (6.4 % for DBT vs. 4.1 % for DM, adjusted OR = 2.02, 95 % CI = 1.54–2.65), and no significant difference in false negative rates for DBT compared to DM (0.46 vs. 0.60/1000 screened, p = 0.347). Our data support implementation of DBT screening based on increased cancer detection, reduced recall, and no difference in false negative screening examinations.