» Articles » PMID: 36996902

Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Plus Ultrasound Versus Digital Mammography Plus Ultrasound for Screening Breast Cancer in Women With Dense Breasts

Overview
Journal Korean J Radiol
Specialty Radiology
Date 2023 Mar 30
PMID 36996902
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: To compare the outcomes of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening combined with ultrasound (US) with those of digital mammography (DM) combined with US in women with dense breasts.

Materials And Methods: A retrospective database search identified consecutive asymptomatic women with dense breasts who underwent breast cancer screening with DBT or DM and whole-breast US simultaneously between June 2016 and July 2019. Women who underwent DBT + US (DBT cohort) and DM + US (DM cohort) were matched using 1:2 ratio according to mammographic density, age, menopausal status, hormone replacement therapy, and a family history of breast cancer. The cancer detection rate (CDR) per 1000 screening examinations, abnormal interpretation rate (AIR), sensitivity, and specificity were compared.

Results: A total of 863 women in the DBT cohort were matched with 1726 women in the DM cohort (median age, 53 years; interquartile range, 40-78 years) and 26 breast cancers (9 in the DBT cohort and 17 in the DM cohort) were identified. The DBT and DM cohorts showed comparable CDR (10.4 [9 of 863; 95% confidence interval {CI}: 4.8-19.7] vs. 9.8 [17 of 1726; 95% CI: 5.7-15.7] per 1000 examinations, respectively; = 0.889). DBT cohort showed a higher AIR than the DM cohort (31.6% [273 of 863; 95% CI: 28.5%-34.9%] vs. 22.4% [387 of 1726; 95% CI: 20.5%-24.5%]; < 0.001). The sensitivity for both cohorts was 100%. In women with negative findings on DBT or DM, supplemental US yielded similar CDRs in both DBT and DM cohorts (4.0 vs. 3.3 per 1000 examinations, respectively; = 0.803) and higher AIR in the DBT cohort (24.8% [188 of 758; 95% CI: 21.8%-28.0%] vs. 16.9% [257 of 1516; 95% CI: 15.1%-18.9%; < 0.001).

Conclusion: DBT screening combined with US showed comparable CDR but lower specificity than DM screening combined with US in women with dense breasts.

Citing Articles

Downgrading Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System categories in ultrasound using strain elastography and computer-aided diagnosis system: a multicenter, prospective study.

Du Y, Ma J, Wu T, Li F, Pan J, Du L Br J Radiol. 2024; 97(1162):1653-1660.

PMID: 39102827 PMC: 11417380. DOI: 10.1093/bjr/tqae136.

References
1.
Ray K, Turner E, Sickles E, Joe B . Suspicious Findings at Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Occult to Conventional Digital Mammography: Imaging Features and Pathology Findings. Breast J. 2015; 21(5):538-42. DOI: 10.1111/tbj.12446. View

2.
Skaane P, Sebuodegard S, Bandos A, Gur D, Osteras B, Gullien R . Performance of breast cancer screening using digital breast tomosynthesis: results from the prospective population-based Oslo Tomosynthesis Screening Trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018; 169(3):489-496. DOI: 10.1007/s10549-018-4705-2. View

3.
Nelson H, 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):244-55. DOI: 10.7326/M15-0969. View

4.
Berg W, Blume J, Cormack J, Mendelson E, Lehrer D, Bohm-Velez M . Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA. 2008; 299(18):2151-63. PMC: 2718688. DOI: 10.1001/jama.299.18.2151. View

5.
Tagliafico A, Mariscotti G, Valdora F, Durando M, Nori J, La Forgia D . A prospective comparative trial of adjunct screening with tomosynthesis or ultrasound in women with mammography-negative dense breasts (ASTOUND-2). Eur J Cancer. 2018; 104:39-46. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2018.08.029. View