Five Consecutive Years of Screening with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Outcomes by Screening Year and Round.

Background Limited data exist beyond prevalence rounds of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening. Purpose To compare DBT outcomes over multiple years and rounds to outcomes of digital mammography (DM) screening. Materials and Methods Retrospective analysis included 1 year of DM and 5 years of DBT screening (September 2011 to September 2016); 67 350 examinations were performed in 29 310 women. Recall rate (RR) percentage, cancer detection rate (CDR) per 1000 women screened, false-negative rate per 1000 women screened, positive predictive value of recall (PPV1) percentage, positive predictive value of biopsies performed percentage, sensitivity, and specificity were calculated. Cancers diagnosed within 1 year of screening were captured by means of linkage to state cancer registry, and biologic characteristics were grouped by prognostic factors. Performance trends across DBT rounds were compared with those from DM rounds by using logistic regression to account for examinations in the same woman. Analyses were adjusted for age, race, breast density, baseline examination, and reader. Results There were 56 839 DBT and 10 511 DM examinations. The mean patient age (± standard deviation) was 56 years ±11 for the entire cohort, 55 years ±11 for the DBT group, and 57 years ±11 for the DM group. RRs were significantly lower for the DBT group (8.0%, 4522 of 56 839; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 7.7, 8.2) than for the DM group (10.4%, 1094 of 10 511; 95% CI: 9.8, 11.0) (P < .001). CDRs were higher with DBT (6.0 per 1000 women screened; 95% CI: 5.4, 6.7 per 1000 women screened; 340 of 56 839) than with DM (5.1 per 1000 women screened; 95% CI: 3.9, 6.6 per 1000 women screened; 54 of 10 511) (P = .25), but this difference was not statistically significant. Both RR and CDR remained improved compared with DM for 5 years of DBT at the population level. False-negative rates were slightly lower for DBT (0.6 per 1000 women screened; 95% CI: 0.4, 0.8 per 1000 women screened; 33 of 56 839) than DM (0.9 per 1000 women screened; 0.4, 1.6 per 1000 women screened; nine of 10 511) overall (P = .30), but the difference was not statistically significant. In adjusted analyses, RR, biopsy recommendation rates, and PPV1 were improved for DBT versus DM (P ≤ .001). Compared with DM, a higher proportion of DBT-detected cancers were invasive (70% [238 of 340] vs 68.5% [37 of 54]) and had poor prognoses characteristics (32.6% [76 of 233] vs 25.0% [nine of 36]). Conclusion Favorable outcomes with digital breast tomosynthesis screening were sustained over multiple years and rounds. Digital breast tomosynthesis screening was associated with detection of a higher proportion of poor-prognosis cancers than was digital mammography. © RSNA, 2020 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Moy and Heller et al in this issue.

[1]  P. Skaane,et al.  Screening outcome for consecutive examinations with digital breast tomosynthesis versus standard digital mammography in a population-based screening program , 2019, European Radiology.

[2]  Marie Synnestvedt,et al.  Breast Cancer Conspicuity on Simultaneously Acquired Digital Mammographic Images versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Images. , 2019, Radiology.

[3]  Natasha K. Stout,et al.  Association of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis vs Digital Mammography With Cancer Detection and Recall Rates by Age and Breast Density , 2019, JAMA oncology.

[4]  K. Lång.  The Coming of Age of Breast Tomosynthesis in Screening. , 2019, Radiology.

[5]  A. Rosso,et al.  One-view breast tomosynthesis versus two-view mammography in the Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial (MBTST): a prospective, population-based, diagnostic accuracy study. , 2018, The Lancet. Oncology.

[6]  Petra Macaskill,et al.  Breast Cancer Screening Using Tomosynthesis or Mammography: A Meta-analysis of Cancer Detection and Recall , 2018, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[7]  P. Macaskill,et al.  Interval breast cancers in the 'screening with tomosynthesis or standard mammography' (STORM) population-based trial. , 2018, Breast.

[8]  P. Macaskill,et al.  Comparison of breast cancers detected in the Verona screening program following transition to digital breast tomosynthesis screening with cancers detected at digital mammography screening , 2018, Breast cancer research and treatment.

[9]  E. Pisano.  Is Tomosynthesis the Future of Breast Cancer Screening? , 2018, Radiology.

[10]  Per Skaane,et al.  Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Synthetic 2D Mammography versus Digital Mammography: Evaluation in a Population-based Screening Program. , 2018, Radiology.

[11]  David Gur,et al.  Performance of breast cancer screening using digital breast tomosynthesis: results from the prospective population-based Oslo Tomosynthesis Screening Trial , 2018, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[12]  Oguzhan Alagoz,et al.  Association of Screening and Treatment With Breast Cancer Mortality by Molecular Subtype in US Women, 2000-2012 , 2018, JAMA.

[13]  Pragya A. Dang,et al.  Breast Cancer Characteristics Associated with 2D Digital Mammography versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Screening-detected and Interval Cancers. , 2017, Radiology.

[14]  N. Houssami,et al.  Digital Breast Tomosynthesis with Synthesized Two-Dimensional Images versus Full-Field Digital Mammography for Population Screening: Outcomes from the Verona Screening Program. , 2017, Radiology.

[15]  Jin You Kim,et al.  Biologic Profiles of Invasive Breast Cancers Detected Only With Digital Breast Tomosynthesis. , 2017, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[16]  E. Conant,et al.  BI-RADS Category 3 Comparison: Probably Benign Category after Recall from Screening before and after Implementation of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis. , 2017, Radiology.

[17]  S. Sams,et al.  Breast Cancers Found with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: A Comparison of Pathology and Histologic Grade , 2016, The breast journal.

[18]  E. Conant,et al.  Strategies to Increase Cancer Detection: Review of True-Positive and False-Negative Results at Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Screening. , 2016, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[19]  Andrew D. A. Maidment,et al.  Implementation of Synthesized Two-dimensional Mammography in a Population-based Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Program. , 2016, Radiology.

[20]  Andrew Oustimov,et al.  Effectiveness of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Compared With Digital Mammography: Outcomes Analysis From 3 Years of Breast Cancer Screening. , 2016, JAMA oncology.

[21]  Anne Marie McCarthy,et al.  Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography compared to digital mammography alone: a cohort study within the PROSPR consortium , 2016, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[22]  Anne Marie McCarthy,et al.  Baseline Screening Mammography: Performance of Full-Field Digital Mammography Versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis. , 2015, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[23]  Anders Tingberg,et al.  Performance of one-view breast tomosynthesis as a stand-alone breast cancer screening modality: results from the Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial, a population-based study , 2015, European Radiology.

[24]  Niels Keiding,et al.  Standardization and Control for Confounding in Observational Studies: A Historical Perspective , 2015, 1503.02853.

[25]  A. Barratt.  Overdiagnosis in mammography screening: a 45 year journey from shadowy idea to acknowledged reality , 2015, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[26]  Radhakrishna Selvi,et al.  BI-RADS for Mammography , 2015 .

[27]  Madhavi Raghu,et al.  Early clinical experience with digital breast tomosynthesis for screening mammography. , 2015, Radiology.

[28]  Daniel F Heitjan,et al.  Screening outcomes following implementation of digital breast tomosynthesis in a general-population screening program. , 2014, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[29]  Emily F Conant,et al.  Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. , 2014, JAMA.

[30]  Emily F Conant,et al.  Clinical implementation of digital breast tomosynthesis. , 2014, Radiologic clinics of North America.

[31]  Madhavi Raghu,et al.  Comparison of tomosynthesis plus digital mammography and digital mammography alone for breast cancer screening. , 2013, Radiology.

[32]  S. Ciatto,et al.  Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. , 2013, The Lancet. Oncology.

[33]  S. Rose,et al.  Implementation of breast tomosynthesis in a routine screening practice: an observational study. , 2013, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[34]  Andriy I. Bandos,et al.  Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. , 2013, Radiology.

[35]  L. Tabár,et al.  Update of the Swedish two-county program of mammographic screening for breast cancer. , 1992, Radiologic clinics of North America.