Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program.

PURPOSE To assess cancer detection rates, false-positive rates before arbitration, positive predictive values for women recalled after arbitration, and the type of cancers detected with use of digital mammography alone and combined with tomosynthesis in a large prospective screening trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS A prospective, reader- and modality-balanced screening study of participants undergoing combined mammography plus tomosynthesis, the results of which were read independently by four different radiologists, is under way. The study was approved by a regional ethics committee, and all participants provided written informed consent. The authors performed a preplanned interim analysis of results from 12,631 examinations interpreted by using mammography alone and mammography plus tomosynthesis from November 22, 2010, to December 31, 2011. Analyses were based on marginal log-linear models for binary data, accounting for correlated interpretations and adjusting for reader-specific performance levels by using a two-sided significance level of .0294. RESULTS Detection rates, including those for invasive and in situ cancers, were 6.1 per 1000 examinations for mammography alone and 8.0 per 1000 examinations for mammography plus tomosynthesis (27% increase, adjusted for reader; P = .001). False-positive rates before arbitration were 61.1 per 1000 examinations with mammography alone and 53.1 per 1000 examinations with mammography plus tomosynthesis (15% decrease, adjusted for reader; P < .001). After arbitration, positive predictive values for recalled patients with cancers verified later were comparable (29.1% and 28.5%, respectively, with mammography alone and mammography plus tomosynthesis; P = .72). Twenty-five additional invasive cancers were detected with mammography plus tomosynthesis (40% increase, adjusted for reader; P < .001). The mean interpretation time was 45 seconds for mammography alone and 91 seconds for mammography plus tomosynthesis (P < .001). CONCLUSION The use of mammography plus tomosynthesis in a screening environment resulted in a significantly higher cancer detection rate and enabled the detection of more invasive cancers. Clinical trial registration no. NCT01248546.

[1]  Mark A Helvie,et al.  Mammography screening: a new estimate of number needed to screen to prevent one breast cancer death. , 2012, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[2]  Unni Haakenaasen,et al.  Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): initial experience in a clinical setting , 2012, Acta radiologica.

[3]  H. Adami,et al.  Overdiagnosis of Invasive Breast Cancer Due to Mammography Screening: Results From the Norwegian Screening Program , 2012, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[4]  Federica Zanca,et al.  Two-view and single-view tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography: high-resolution X-ray imaging observer study. , 2012, Radiology.

[5]  David Gur,et al.  Dose reduction in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening using synthetically reconstructed projection images: an observer performance study. , 2012, Academic radiology.

[6]  Paolo Peterlongo,et al.  Prospective study of breast tomosynthesis as a triage to assessment in screening , 2012, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[7]  J. Baker,et al.  Breast tomosynthesis: state-of-the-art and review of the literature. , 2011, Academic radiology.

[8]  L. Tabár,et al.  Swedish two-county trial: impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality during 3 decades. , 2011, Radiology.

[9]  S. Duffy,et al.  Mammographic screening and "overdiagnosis". , 2011, Radiology.

[10]  Stefano Ciatto,et al.  The evolving role of new imaging methods in breast screening. , 2011, Preventive medicine.

[11]  H. D. de Koning,et al.  Interpreting Overdiagnosis Estimates in Population-based Mammography Screening , 2011, Epidemiologic reviews.

[12]  Mark A Helvie,et al.  Digital mammography imaging: breast tomosynthesis and advanced applications. , 2010, Radiologic clinics of North America.

[13]  E. Sickles.  The use of breast imaging to screen women at high risk for cancer. , 2010, Radiologic clinics of North America.

[14]  Nancy A Obuchowski,et al.  Effect of computer-aided detection for CT colonography in a multireader, multicase trial. , 2010, Radiology.

[15]  Gisella Gennaro,et al.  Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: a clinical performance study , 2010, European Radiology.

[16]  A. Verbeek,et al.  A remarkable reduction of breast cancer deaths in screened versus unscreened women: a case-referent study , 2010, Cancer Causes & Control.

[17]  David Gur,et al.  Time to diagnosis and performance levels during repeat interpretations of digital breast tomosynthesis: preliminary observations. , 2010, Academic radiology.

[18]  I Andersson,et al.  The diagnostic accuracy of dual-view digital mammography, single-view breast tomosynthesis and a dual-view combination of breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography in a free-response observer performance study. , 2010, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[19]  Timothy J Wilt,et al.  Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. , 2009, Annals of internal medicine.

[20]  David Gur,et al.  Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study. , 2009, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[21]  L. Guittet,et al.  Comparison of a guaiac and an immunochemical faecal occult blood test for the detection of colonic lesions according to lesion type and location , 2009, British Journal of Cancer.

[22]  Anders Tingberg,et al.  Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of breast cancer visibility and BIRADS classification in a population of cancers with subtle mammographic findings , 2008, European Radiology.

[23]  Jean B. Cormack,et al.  Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. , 2008, JAMA.

[24]  Tor D Tosteson,et al.  Digital breast tomosynthesis: initial experience in 98 women with abnormal digital screening mammography. , 2007, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[25]  Steven Gutman,et al.  Opinion: The US Food and Drug Administration perspective on cancer biomarker development , 2006, Nature Reviews Cancer.

[26]  Per Skaane,et al.  Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: randomized trial in a population-based screening program--the Oslo II Study. , 2004, Radiology.

[27]  Per Skaane,et al.  Population-based mammography screening: comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading--Oslo I study. , 2003, Radiology.

[28]  M S Pepe,et al.  Comparing disease screening tests when true disease status is ascertained only for screen positives. , 2001, Biostatistics.

[29]  D. Kopans,et al.  Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging. , 1997, Radiology.

[30]  B Bunnag,et al.  Comparing new and old screening tests when a reference procedure cannot be performed on all screenees. Example of automated cytometry for early detection of cervical cancer. , 1987, American journal of epidemiology.

[31]  S. Pocock.  Group sequential methods in the design and analysis of clinical trials , 1977 .

[32]  C. Metz,et al.  Visual detection and localization of radiographic images. , 1975, Radiology.

[33]  Dana H Whaley,et al.  Dedicated dual-head gamma imaging for breast cancer screening in women with mammographically dense breasts. , 2011, Radiology.

[34]  Kenneth G. A. Gilhuijs,et al.  Breast tomosynthesis in clinical practice: initial results , 2009, European Radiology.

[35]  Consumer Protection,et al.  European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth edition--summary document. , 2008, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.